PAW. 

SUM. 


PASTORAL  ADDRESS, 


BY  THE  RIGHT  REVEREND 


WITH  notes  and  a review  of  the  recent  work  of  the 


REV.  R.  ANDERSON,  D.D. 


ENTITLED 


66 


Tlie  Hawaiian  Islands. 


99 


ft 


HONOLULU : 

PRINTED  AT  THE  HAWAIIAN  GAZETTE  OFFICE. 

1865. 


PASTORAL  ADDRESS, 


BY  THE  RIGHT  REVEREND 


Cjje  Sis  I)  op  of  Honolulu, 

DELIVERED  IN  HIS  CHURCH  ON  NEW  YEAR?S  DAY,  1865,  IN 
REPLY  TO  CERTAIN  MIS-STATEMENTS  IN  A 
RECENT  REPORT  OF  THE 


AMERICAN  BOARD  OF 

COMMISSIONERS  FOR  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

(PRESBYTERIANS  AND  CONGREGATIONALISTS.) 


PUBLISHED  AT  THE  REQUEST  OF  THE  CONGREGATION, 


WITH  NOTES  AND  AN  APPENDIX,  CONTAINING  SOME  ANIMADVERSIONS  ON 
THE  NEW  WORK  OF  REV.  DR.  ANDERSON,  ENTITLED 

“The  Hawaiian  Islands.” 

T1  VU  t-fc\esVi»>  SVaUv,  W. 


HONOLULU : 

PRINTED  AT  THE  HAWAIIAN  GAZETTE  OFFICE. 

1865. 


J m 


SfP  28  1915 


*/ 


*• /J  f //  b V u 


l|  qoizf 


' 


*<»  ._  .VI/ r 


PREFACE. 




The  interval  between  the  delivery  and  publication  of 
this  address,  with  the  accompanying  notes,  has  been 
somewhat  longer  than  I intended,  owing  to  nearly  a 
month’s  absence  from  this  island.  1 have  been  obliged 
in  consequence  to  hurry  it  through  the  press. 

Some  of  the  facts  referred  to  may  appear  unnecessary 
to  have  been  mentioned  here , where  they  are  so  well 
known,  but  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  pub- 
lication will  be  read  in  England  and  the  United  States. 

It  has  been  my  course  hitherto  to  bear  in  silence  the 
many  proofs  which  have  come  under  my  notice  of  the 
deep  rooted  hostility  entertained  to  the  Episcopal  Church, 
by  the  original  Evangelizers  of  this  nation,  shown  by 
systematic  misrepresentation  and  open  abuse. 

When  that  hostility  culminated  in  “the  appeal  to 
Evangelical  Christendom  ” by  the  American  Board,  fol- 
lowed by  the  attack  upon  the  Church  in  Dr.  Anderson’s 
work,  I felt  it  a duty  no  longer  to  remain  silent.  The 
charge  of  “ intrusion  ” made  by  the  former,  has  already 
been  ably  refuted  by  the  friends  of  the  Church  in 
England  ; but  in  this  Kingdom  and  the  United  States,  it 
might,  if  unnoticed,  have  some  effect. 

The  intolerant  spirit  of  Congregational  Puritanism,  as 
regards  the  Anglo-American  Church,  is  nothing  new. 
In  the  History  of  the  American  Episcopal  Church  by 
Bishop  Wilberforce,  p.  110,  we  read,  “In  New  England, 
the  Church,  (the  Episcopal.)  was  rooted  amid  storms  and 
opposition.  Wherever  its  Missionaries  came,  the  Minis- 
ters and  Magistrates  of  the  Independents  were  remarka- 


. II 


bly  industrious,  going  from  home  to  house  to  dissuade 
the  people  from  hearing  them.  As  late  as  A.  D.  1750. 
they  fined  an  Episcopal  Clergyman  of  English  birth  and 
education,  on  the  pretence  that  he  had  broken  the  Sab- 
bath by  walking  home  too  fast  from  Church.  ‘ I cannot,’ 
said  the  Rev.  Mr.  Johnson,  writing  to  the  Society  for 
Propagating  the  Gospel,  ‘ but  think  it  hard  that  the 
Church  of  which  our  most  gracious  King  is  the  nursing 
father,  should  not,  in  any  part  of  his  dominions,  be  on 
the  same  level  at  least  with  dissenters,  and  free  fiom 
their  oppressions.’  ’’ 

Let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  for  this  controversy  I 
am  not  responsible.  Certain  assertions  calculated  to 
mislead  have  proceeded  from  Dr.  Anderson  and  “the 
Prudential  Committee.”  My  object  is  simply  to  refute 
these  assertions,  and  put  the  true  facts  of  the  case  before 
the  world. 

I would  have  gladly  omitted  this  unpleasing  task. 
There  is  so  much  work  for  us  all  to  do,  in  saving  the 
life  of  this  people,  that  we  can  ill  afford  to  be  wasting- 
precious  moments  in  contending  about  who  shall  do  it. 
nor  can  the  cause  of  religion  generally  be  expected  to 
flourish  amid  the  strife  of  tongues. 

Peace,  Love,  the  cherubim  entwined 
Around  the  mercy  sent  divine, 

Prayers  rise  in  vain,  and  temples  shine 
Where  they  are  not.” 

T.  N.  flONOLULU. 

Mauxa  Ala,  Nuuanu.  March  25.  1865. 


ADDRESS. 


Os  this,  the  lirst  day  of  the  new  year,  I would  fain  have 
spoken  to  you  only  words  of  congratulation  and  hope — con- 
gratulation that  you  have  been  brought  in  safety  to  the  end 
of  I8f)4.  now  gone  by  forever,  with  its  hopes  and  fears,  its 
trials  and  its  blessings  ; hope,  that  you  may  be  spared  in  health 
and  happiness  through  this  new  year  of  grace,  growing  each 
day  more  and  more  into  the  image  of  your  great  exemplar,  the 
man  Christ  Jesus,  until  you  finally  reach  TIis  everlasting 
Kingdom. 

As  it  is,  something  more  than  this  remains  lor  me  to  do. 

You  are  aware  how  indifferent  I have  always  been  to  calumny 
and  abuse.  1 have  ever  felt,  during  my  ministry  among  you,  that 
the  few  hours  you  gave  up  on  Sundays  to  the  duties  of  the 
sanctuary,  were  far  too  sacred,  too  precious  for  me  to  waste 
any,  the  smallest  part,  of  them  in  meeting  frivolous  charges  or 
noticing  the  current  gossip  of  the  day.  I knew  that  time  would 
correct  wrong  impressions,  that  the  secret  of  success  in  mission- 
ary enterprise  had  ever  been  the  words  of  the  evangelical  proph- 
et. “ In  quietness  and  in  confidence  shall  be  your  strength.” 
Speaking  for  my  Reverend  brethren,  as  well  as  for  myself,  1 may 
say  that  in  the  face  of  the  vast  work  we  have  found  awaiting  us 
in  these  Islands,  in  the  training  of  the  young,  in  visiting  the 
sick,  and  turning  sinners  to  repentance,  our  feelings  have  been 
rather  those  of  the  three  Hebrew  children  when  shewn  the 
burning  furnace  of  the  heathen  King,  !t  0 Nebuchadnezzar,  we 
are  not  careful  to  answer  thee  in  this  matter.”  But  the  case  is 
wholly  different  when  men  claiming  to  be  ministers  of  the  Gospel 
of  peace  and  charity,  and  specially  engaged  in  its  propagation, 
have  so  lost  sight  of  its  spirit  and  very  essence  as  to  utter,  with 


4 


regard  to  a body  of  their  fellow  Christians,  misrepresentations 
so  untrue,  cliai'ges  so  fearful,  as  those  which  have  been  brought 
against  our  own  Church.  I refer  to  the  Report  of  the  Ameri- 
can Board  of  Missions. 

Let  me  say  a few  words  as  to  the  constitution  of  this  Society. 
Though  with  a very  pretentious  title  it  represents  in  reality, 
only  the  two  Calvinistic  denominations,  known  as  Presbyterians 
and  Congregationalists.  Of  these,  the  former  are  divided  into 
ten,  the  latter  into  four  distinct  sects.  The  Methodists,  the  Bap- 
tists and  the  Episcopal  Church  have  each  their  own  Missionary 
institutions.  The  bitter  hostiliy  which  “the  American  Board” 
displays  to  our  mission  is  doubtless  accounted  for,  in  part,  by 
the  fact  that  the  two  bodies  of  which  it  is  composed,  have  ever 
been  the  most  relentless  in  their  hatred  to  the  Anglican  Church, 
whether  in  England  or  in  America. 

In  vindicating  the  Mission  from  the  charges  brought  against 
it,  I have  no  desire  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  defects  or  faults  of 
those  devoted  men,  who  were  the  first  to  make  known  the  Gos- 
pel of  Christ  to  the  people  of  Hawaii.  I shall  pass  no  opinions 
whatever  of  my  own,  except  what  may  be  borne  out  by  facts,  as 
to  the  results  which  have  attended  their  teaching  for  the  last 
forty  years,  and  the  work  which  still  is  left  to  be  done.  I shall 
appeal  to  the  written  testimony  of  the  missionaries  themselves, 
when  it  is  necessary  to  speak  on  these  subjects. 

The  Report  sets  out  with  a description  of  the  original  degra- 
ded state  in  which  the  first  missionaries  found  the  natives  of 
these  islands,  and  the  difficulties  they  encountered  ; how  they 
reduced  the  language  to  writing,  translated  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
taught  old  and  young  to  read  and  write,  till  at  last,  within  forty 
years  from  their  arrival,  “ the  Hawaiian  Islands  had  become 
substantially  a civilized  and  christianized  nation.”  “It  may  be 
fairly  questioned  whether  there  is  a larger  number  of  the  agri- 
cultural peasantry  of  the  Diocese  of  Oxford  (in  England)  who 
can  read  the  Bible  intelligently,  and  give  an  intelligent  account 
of  what  the  Christian  religion  is,”  etc.  As  an  Englishman, 
knowing  a little  of  my  own  country,  and  possessing  some  of  tin1 
statistics  of  the  vices  of  our  towns  and  villages,  I might,  were 


5 


this  the  time  and  place  to  do  so,  dispute  the  assertion  that  Ho- 
nolulu, or  the  islands  generally,  can  be  compared  with  England 
in  regard  to  morals.  Vice  is  here  the  rule,  not  the  exception. 
I am  sure,  from  my  own  observation,  that  the  ideas  which  Hu- 
waiians  have  about  the  Bible  and  the  Christian  religion,  are  any- 
thing but  “intelligent” — nay,  are  of  the  most  crude  and  mistaken 
kind.*  But  assuming  what  is  here  stated  to  be  in  part  true,  is 
the  inference  intended  to  be  drawn  therefrom  also  true,  that  the 
people  are  so  far  advanced  in  their  religious  knowledge,  and  in 
purity  of  life,  that  nothing  still  remains  for  us  to  accomplish  : 
that  there  was  no  work  for  our  Church  to  do,  if  it  came  here, 
except  that  perhaps  a solitary  clergyman  might  minister  among 
a few  foreign  residents  at  the  capital  ? If  it  can  be  shown  that 
20,000  natives  are  in  communion  with  no  Christian  body,  that 
even  10,000  are  living  in  this  Kingdoia  “ without  God,”  without 
any  profession  of  Christianity  at  all,  we  have  at  least  the  same 
right  as  others  to  be  here  and  to  be  working,  to  say  nothing  of  a 
Royal  invitation,  given,  not  once,  but  at  least  twice,  to  our 
Church  since  the  first  visit  of  Vancouver,  seventy  years  ago.t 

TESTIMONIES  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  MISSIONARIES  NOW  AT  THE  ISLANDS, 
AS  TO  THEIR  SPIRITUAL  AND  MORAL  STATE. 

I have  before  me  the  report  to  the  Propaganda,  for  1860,  by 
the  Vicar-Apostolic  the  Right  Reverend  Louis  Maigret.  In  a 
table  recording  the  progress  of  his  Church,  he  divides  the 
people  into  Catholics,  (Roman,)  Heretics,  (Calvinist,)  and  Infi- 
dels. He  puts  down  the  Infidels,  under  which  term,  I suppose, 
he  includes  all  who  make  no  profession  of  Christianity,  at  23,000. 
Say  there  are  only  half  this  number  of  natives  in  communion 
with  none  of  the  existing  denominations,  they  might  well  find 
employment  for  at  least  six  clergymen,  requiring  as  they  do  so 
much  individual  supervision. 

But  let  me  read  to  you,  extracts  from  the  report  of  the 
Hawaiian  Evangelical  Association,  as  the  Calvinist  missionaries 
are  called.  It  was  published  within  a year  after  our  arrival, 
and  is  circulated  in  the  islands. 

* See  Note  A in  Appendix.  fSee  Note  B in  Appendix. 


6 


The  view  it  presents,  certainly  does  not  seem  to  justify  the 
glowing  picture  drawn  in  this  Report  of  the  Board. 

From  Hawaii — District  of  Hilo. — 3Iissionary  Titus  Goan. 

He  tells  us,  “ Tho  Papists  have  made  a long  and  a strong  de- 
monstration in  connection  with  the  building,  and  consecration  of 
their  new  temple.  Their  numbers  are  gradually  increasing, 
though  none  of  our  worthy  people*  unite  with  them.  The 
remaining  evils  are  indolence,  licentiousness,  disease  and  super- 
stition.” 

District  of  Kou. — 0.  H.  Gv.lick. 

“ The  Sabbath  is  not  observed  in  that  sacred  manner,  indica- 
tive of  a high  standard  of  piety.  This  is  one  of  the  strong 
holds  of  popery.  They,  the  Papists,  have  recruited  their  ranks 
from  fallen  church  members.  (!)  There  is  but  little  evidence 
among  us  of  spiritual  life.  The  large  number  of  professors  of 
religion  who  take  no  interest  in  worship  in  Sabbath  or  week 
day  meetings,  indicates  a sad  need  of  the  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.” 

District  of  South  Kona. — J.  D.  Paris. 

“ There  never  has  been  so  much  perfect  indifference  among 
the  ungodly,  owing,  no  doubt,  to  the  increase  of  rational 
Christianity  and  infidelity  among  foreigners.” 

District  of  Kohala. — E.  Bond. 

“ The  church  has  continued  in  a lukewarm  state,  showing- 
little  zeal  in  the  progress  of  the  truth  among  them.” 

From  Maui — District  of  Hana. — S.  E.  Bishop. 

“ The  great  majority  of  the  people  are  extremely  ignorant. 
The  ignorance  of  the  larger  part  of  church  members,  as  to  the 
fundamental  facts  and  doctrines  of  the  Bible  is  very  great. 
Pew  books  are  found  among  or  purchased  by  the  people.  The 
public  sentiment,  as  to  impurity  of  speech  and  conduct  is  very 
debased.  Sorcery  has  for  four  years  been  increasing  in  this 
district.” 


District  of  Lahaina — D.  Bald  inn. 
“ The  state  of  religion,  in  general,  is  low.” 


* I offer  no  comment  upon  this  self-complacent  and  uncharitable  style  of 
speaking  of  their  fellow  Christians,  which  the  Calvinist  teachers  generally 
seem  to  have  adopted. 


7 


From  Oahu. — A.  Bishop. 

“ The  religious  condition  of  Ewa  has  been  lower  than  in 
former  years.  There  is  defection  in  attendance  upon  the  duties 
of  religion,  both  on  the  Sabbath  and  social  meetings.” 

Hauula. — M.  Kuaea. 

“ Owing  to  various  causes,  the  number,  as  well  as  the  zeal  of 
the  church  has  diminished  the  past  year.  Of  those  cut  off  last 
year,  only  one  attends  the  means  of  grace.  Many  of  the  re- 
maining church  members  are  apparently  drv  branches.  The 
contributions  of  the  people  have  diminished.” 

Kaneohe. — B.  IV.  Parker. 

“ We  have  not  had  the  special  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
our  church  and  congregation.  Sinners  have  not  been  converted. 
Great  efforts  have  been  made  the  past  year,  to  awaken  a new 
interest  in  Mormonism.  Here  is  one  of  the  strong  holds  of  the 
man  of  sin.”  (The  Pope  ? ) “ Sabbath  desecration  is  fearfully 

prevalent.  Gambling  is  quite  common.  Licentiousness  more 
prevalent  than  it  was  a few'  years  since.” 

From  Kauai — Waidi. — E.  Johnson. 

“ A general  apathy  pervades  the  Church.”  “The  Mormons 
have  gained  some  to  their  ranks  from  those  who  forsake  the  or- 
dinances of  the  Gospel  ; a part  of  them  from  the  ranks  of  the 
Church.”  At  Koloa,  J.  W.  Smith  : “ The  state  of  religion 
throughout  the  field  is  low,  far  from  what  the  pastor  desires, 
and  being  far  from  the  high  standard  set  forth  in  the  Gospel.” 

From  Molokai. — A.  0.  Forbes. 

“From  June  till  January  of  last  year,  Satan  seemed  to  have 
full  sway.  Drunkenness  and  revelry  became  more  general  and 
rose  to  a greater  height  than  ever  before.  The  leaders  in  the 
work  of  debauchery  and  riot  were  chiefly  non-professors  of  re- 
ligion, Papists  and  Mormons,  There  is  reason  to  believe  that 
some  of  the  ancient  idols  are  secretly  worshipped  by  a small 
number  of  the  people.  Sorcery  is  practised  by  a numerous 
class  of  kahunas  or  priests.  The  whole  population  are  under  its 
influence,  and  ^ome  deaths  undoubtedly  occur  from  superstitious 
fear.” 

These  passages  show  .first,  that  there  is  a large  body  in  these 
islands  called  “ non-professors  of  religion,” — attached,  that  is,  to 
none  of  the  religious  bodies — who,  in  themselves,  might  present 
a field  large  enough  to  occupy  any  new  agency  that  might  be 


8 


brought  to  bear  upon  them.  Seccmdly,  that  there  is  every  where 
prevalent  a sad  amount  of  unreality  and  lifelessness  in  the  ex- 
perience of  even  “ nominal  professors.”  Thirdly , that  the  Cal- 
vinistic  system  has  failed  to  make  head  against  what  the 
missionaries  usually  class  together — Popery*  Mormonism  and 
infidelity — or  to  stem  the  torrent  of  returning  heathenism. 

THIS  MISSION  NOT  A PROSELYTIZING  ONE. 

Have  we  in  our  ministrations  sought  to  make  it  our  first  care 
to  bring  into  the  fold,  those  erring  and  stray  sheep  who  have  no 
spiritual  owners,  “ to  gather  up  the  fragments  left  by  others 
that  nothing  be  lost  ?”  I might  refer  you  to  my  two  printed 
sermons,  the  one  preached  as  my  farewell  to  England,  in 
Westminster  Abbey  ; the  other,  my  first  words  in  this  church, 
on  Sunday,  October  12,  1862.  In  these  occur  the  following 
passages  : “ It  is  an  admitted  fact,  that  a large  number  of  the 

people  are  in  active  communion  with  none  of  the  existing 
bodies  ; among  them,  we  must  seek  to  labor,  not  doubting 
that  as  we  carry  to  them  the  Church’s  message  in  all 
fidelity,  zeal  and  love,  she  will  attract  to  herself  many 
others,  whom  she  would  effectually  repel,  were  she  to  assume 
a posture  of  unfriendliness  and  aggression.  If  we  keep  in 
mind  that  the  great  object  of  the  Mission  is  the  salvation 
of  the  souls  and  bodies  of  those  among  whom  we  are  going 
to  labour,  and  not  the  numbers  we  can  count  as  members 
of  our  communion,  we  may  hope,  by  God’s  blessing,  to  escape 
this  danger.”  But  this,  you  may  say,  was  merely  prospective, 
and  has  not  been  carried  into  effect.  Let  me  then  read  to  you 
the  testimony  of  one  long  a Calvinist  missionary  here,  the  Rev. 
L.  Smith.  In  the  Hawaiian  Evangelical  Report,  which  I have 
quoted  before,  this  Divine,  so  eminent  it  would  appear  for  his 
learning  or  piety  that  he  has  just  received  the  degree  of  I).  D. 
from  an  American  University,  makes  the  following  reference  to 
our  Church  : 

* Every  one  here  remarks  on  the  steady  progress  of  the  Roman  Church.  At 
the  Election  of  Representatives  for  Honolulu  (early  in  1864),  which  unhappily 
was  made  to  turn  partly  on  the  “ religious  persuasion  ” of  the  candidates,  of 
the  four  members  returned,  three  were  Roman  Cntholics,  one  a member  of  the 
Episcopal  Church. 


9 


“ This  sect  have  (sic)  come  and  established  themselves 
at  Honolulu  since  our  last  general  meeting.  They  have 
organized  a Church,  embracing  persons  who  formerly  professed 
to  be  Episcopalians,  and  some  who  never  before  professed  to  be 
pious.  The  King  and  Queen,  and  several  foreigners,  who  but 
seldom  if  ever  attended  worship  heretofore,  are  among  their  first 
ripe,  gathered,  confirmed*  fruits.” 

The  italics  are  the  writer’s  own.  I quote  this  passage, 
not  to  expose  the  vulgar  spite  and  sneering  tone  which 
characterize  it,  or  the  miserable  specimen  it  affords  of  the 
writer’s  literary  and  theological  attainments,  so  little  credit- 
able, as  you  will  doubtless  feel  any  of  these  to  be,  to  one 
calling  himself  a minister  of  Christ ; but  as  bearing,  at  least, 
an  impartial  testimony  to  the  direction  which  our  labours 
have  taken.  Yes!  it  is  among  those  “who  never  before  were 
known  to  be  pious  it  is  among  those  “ who  never  frequented 
worship  before”  that  our  chief  trophies  have  been  won.  If  it 
be  a reproach  to  us  that  we  have  among  our  members  those 
who  answer  to  this  description,  “ we  glory  in  our  shame.”  He 
who  came  not  to  call  the  righteous  but  sinners  to  repentance, 
was  blamed  by  the  Pharisees  because  “ he  sat  and  ate  bread 
with  publicans  and  sinners.”  We  came  here  to  follow  the  ex- 
ample of  our  dear  Lord,  and  it  has  pleased  him  to  bless  our 
humble  efforts  beyond  what  we  might  have  anticipated.  We 
are  able  to  point  to  the  changed  lives  of  some,  both  natives  and 
foreigners,  who  have  placed  themselves  under  our  spiritual  care  ; 
to  unions,  unblest  by  the  benediction  of  heaven,  solemnly  sealed 
in  the  sight  of  God  and  His  Church  ; to  men  and  women  for- 
merly known  as  drunken  and  licentious,  nay,  almost  lost,  now 
steady,  sober,  and  able  to  fill  with  credit  positions  from  which 
their  habits  had  previously  debarred  them.  This  was  the  work 
we  came  to  do.  We  came  not  to  be  sources  of  political  disquie- 
tude ; we  came  not  to  act  the  part  of  political  demagogues,  but 
by  our  labours  for  Christ  and  His  Church,  on  the  area  still  unoc- 
cupied (if  we  may  credit  the  assertions  of  the  missionaries  them- 
selves,) to  aid  the  King,  as  the  Father  of  his  People,  in  his 
great  work  of  not  only  raising  them  to  a higher  moral  life,  but 

* Mr.  Smith  evidently  imagines  confirmation,  instead  of  being  the  outward 
sign  of  conversion,  is  the  crowning  point  of  the  Christian  life. 

2 


10 


actually  saving  them  from  extinction.  Do  not  misunderstand 
me.  I mean  not  to  say  that  we  have  not  a considerable  number 
attached  to  the  Church  who  belonged  formerly  to  other  com- 
munions. It  was  to  be  expected  that  many  would  be  attracted 
by  those  features  of  teaching  and  worship  which  characterize 
it.  When  they  come  we  gladly  welcome  them.  But  we  do  not 
like  some,  compass  heaven  and  earth  to  make  proselytes.  Rath- 
er, as  I remarked  before,  we  come  “to  seek  and  to  save  that 
which  is  lost.” 

THE  CHARGE  THAT  THIS  MISSION  “ HOLDS  OF  NO  ACCOUNT  WHAT  GOD 

HAS  WROUGHT  BY  HIS  BLESSING,  ON  THE  LABOURS  OF  THE  CAL- 
VINIST TEACHERS.” 

To  this,  I give  a peremptory  denial.  I ask  you,  who,  for  two 
years  have  worshipped  with  us  within  these  walls,  have  you 
ever  heard  from  our  lips,  with  regard  to  others  engaged  in  the 
work  of  evangelizing  these  islands,  one  word  to  disparage  their 
labors,  one  word  inconsistent  with  Christian  charity  ? Has  not 
our  whole  ministry  been  a continued  setting  forth  of  the  Divine 
charity  as  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  Gospel?  Have  I not 
advocated  the  utmost  latitude  in  the  expression  of  opinion,  as 
far  as  consists  with  the  great  verities  of  the  faith  ? Have  I not 
when  called  on  to  notice  systems  which  seemed  to  me  erroneous 
always  accompanied  my  observations  with  some  qualifying  re- 
mark as  to  the  sanctity  of  conscience,  and  the  duty  of  giving  our 
opponents  credit  for  the  same  degree  of  conviction,  the  same 
sincerity,  as  actuate  ourselves  ? I preached  some  time  ago  to 
the  natives  a course  of  lectures,  in  the  form  of  question  and 
answer,  on  the  distinctive  features  of  the  Church.  1 had  to 
notice  its  points  of  difference  from,  as  well  as  agreement  with  Ro- 
manism and  Congregationalism.  These  lectures  arc  now  in  print. 
And  how  do  I conclude?  “ What  is  our  duty  with  regard  to  the 
members  of  other  communions  than  our  own  ? To  love  them  as 
our  fellow  Christians,  to  pray  for  theta,  to  imitate  what  is  good 
in  them,  and  to  remember  that  a man  will  be  saved,  not  from 
the  mere  fact  of  belonging  to  this  or  that  communion,  but  by 
seeking  to  do  the  Will  of  Our  Father  which  is  in  Heaven.” 


11 


Listen,  again,  to  some  of  my  farewell  words  to  the  Church  at 
home,  and  to  my  opening  message  in  this  land  : 

“ Nothing  would  shake  all  religious  belief  more  effectually, 
than  for  us  to  assume  an  attitude  of  hostility  to  those  forms  of 
Christianity  with  which  they  are  now  familiar.  We  must  shew 
the  people  how,  beneath  the  defects  and  corruptions  of  this  or 
that  communion,  there  lies  a substratum  of  truth,  in  the  admis- 
sion of  the  great  historic  facts  of  the  creeds,  which  may  well  in- 
crease their  faith  in  those  facts,  and  lead  to  greater  charity  and 
forbearance  in  our  treatment  of  those  Articles  of  the  Faith 
which  are  called  in  question.  We  are  to  speak  the  truth,  but 
it  must  be  in  love,  and  we  are  to  give  all  who  have  been  hith- 
erto labouring  with  so  much  devotion  and  earnestness  in  their 
Master’s  cause,  while  we  have  been  looking  on  with  cold  indif- 
ference, the  credit  they  deserve.  We  must  make  it  clear  we 
do  not  go  forth  to  ignore  or  override  what  has  been  done  by 
others.  * * And  we  come  in  all  good  will  to  those  who  have 
been  labouring  here  before  us.  However  much  we  may  con- 
scientiously differ  from  them,  we  desire  not  to  ignore  the  work 
which  they  have  done  to  the  best  of  their  ability,  nor  withhold 
from  them  the  credit  they  deserve.  In  turn,  we  claim  the  same 
consideration  and  forbearance.” 

These  principles  have  been  carried  out  in  practice.  I defy 
any  one  to  produce  me  a single  instance  in  which  I have  “ iguored 
the  work  done  by  the  Protestant  Missionaries,”  either  in  word 
or  deed.  Vague  charges  of  this  sort  are  easily  made  : let  them 
be  proved.  No,  brethren ! we  have  ever  admitted  the  zeal  and 
success  of  the  Calvinist  Missionaries  here,  in  spreading,  partly 
by  their  own  teaching,  partly  through  the  influence  of  the 
Chiefs,*  that  system  which  they  believed  to  be  the  true  Gospel 
of  Christ,  in  giving  the  nation  a written  language,  in  translating 
the  Holy  Scriptures  and  in  establishing  schools.  And  more 
than  this  we  are  not  called  upon  to  say.  The)7  taught  the  great 
facts  of  the  Life,  Sufferings  and  Death  of  the  Redeemer,  the  ne- 
cessity of  God’s  Holy  Spirit  to  renew  man’s  sinful  nature.  All 
these  we,  too,  accept  as  the  basis  of  the  Christian  Faith.  We 
owe  them  many  thanks  for  having  prepared  the  way  for  us,  by 
familiarizing  the  people  with  these  mighty  truths  ! When  we 
are  represented  in  this  address  of  the  Board  of  Congregation- 
alist  and  Presbyterian  Missions,  as  “contradicting  what  has  been 


Note  C,  Appendix. 


12 


taught  as  to  our  salvation  through  Christ  only,”  we  might  ap- 
peal to  you,  who  have  been  wont  to  listen  to  our  preaching, 
whether  this  is  not  a gross  mis-statement.  Has  it  not  been  our 
whole  aim  to  point  you,  by  sermon  and  sacrament,  to  “ the  Lamb 
of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,”  to  build  you  up 
in  the  graces  of  the  Christian  life  ? Through  whom  have  we 
taught  you  to  look  for  salvation  but  through  that  name,  other 
than  which  there  is  none  whereby  we  can  be  saved  ? Brethren, 
this  is  a terrible  thing  to  say  of  us,  and  let  us  hope  in  all  charity 
that  those  who  uttered  the  charge  had  no  deliberate  intention 
to  deceive,  but  were  themselves  unwillingly  misled.  If  not, 
may  God  forgive  them!  So,  too,  of  that  other  expression  : 

“ This  Church  (the  English)  comes  not  as  an  ally  against  ig- 
norance and  sin,  but  as  an  enemy  !” 

Suppose  in  the  Crimean  war  the  French  had  said,  “You  Eng- 
lish are  not  allies  with  us  against  the  Russians,  but  (mark  the 
antithesis)  but  our  enemy.”  There  could  have  been,  if  words 
mean  anything  at  all,  but  one  inference — that  the  English  were 
the  allies  of  the  Russians.  We  are,  therefore,  I suppose,  “al- 
lies of  ignorance  and  sin !”  Oh  ! think,  dear  brethren,  of  those 
devoted  clergymen  who,  giving  up  bright  prospects  in  the 
Church  at  home,  have  come  out  to  this  distant  land,  and  have 
been  spending  three  or  four  hours  a day  in  teaching  Hawaiian 
boys,  in  addition  to  their  other  duties,  carrying  on  everywhere 
a noble  fight  with  vice  and  misery,  never  weary  of  ministering 
to  you  the  word  of  life  and  the  food  of  Christ’s  Holy  Sacraments 
— think  of  those  holy  women*  who,  for  the  love  of  Christ,  have 
given  up  their  lives  to  works  of  piety  and  mercy,  and  are  now 
training  Hawaiian  girls  to  lead  virtuous  lives,  so  as  to  turn  out, 
in  the  next  generation,  good  careful  mothers,  Christian  women 
in  fact  worthy  of  the  name,  and  then  tremble  at  the  lengths  men 
will  go  to,  when  embittered  by  religious  intolerance  and  mad- 
dened by  sectarian  jealousy. 


See  Note  D,  Appendix. 


13 


THE  CHURCH  DOES  NOT  IGNORE,  BUT  SUPPLIES  WHAT  WAS  LACKING 
IN  THE  TEACHING  OF  THE  PURITAN  MISSIONARIES. 

In  according,  however,  to  individuals  the  credit  they  deserve, 
in  accepting  thankfully  what  they  have  taught,  we  make  this 
reservation,  that  the  Church  of  which  we  are  members,  has 
something  more  to  proclaim  than  was  understood  by  the  first 
evangelizers  of  these  Islands.  If  not,  I fully  admit,  we  have  no 
business  here.  I mean  that  some  of  our  inferences  drawn  from 
the  facts  of  the  Creeds,  which  we  hold  in  common  with  them, 
are  essentially  different  from  their  inferences.  In  one  word, 
we  do  not  believe  Puritanism  to  be  the  legitimate  deduction 
from  those  facts.  We  believe  it  as  a system,  to  be  utterly 
unable  to  solve  the  moral  problems  of  the  universe.  We  be- 
lieve it  most  unsuited  for  that  light-hearted  race,  those  laugh- 
ing children  of  the  sun,  who  dwell  in  these  islands.  I have  not 
time  to  explain  what  I mean,  but  will  merely  give  an  illustra- 
tion. Their  old  athletic  games  and  hulas  were  from  the  first 
tabooed.  I do  not  know  enough  of  those  hulas  and  those  games 
to  be  able  to  say  how  far  they  were  right  or  wrong.  I am  told 
some  were  very  licentious,  while  others  led  to  gambling  and 
dissipation.  Be  it  so.  Were  Christian  games  and  Christian 
dances  taught  in  their  place?  Nay,  — were  not  the  very 
dances  and  amusements  which  grace  every  Christian  court  in 
Europe,  and  which  the  most  pious  Catholic  churchmen  wrould 
regard  as  essential  to  the  healthy  training  of  his  children,  de- 
nounced as  too  irreligious,  too  sinful  to  be  tolerated  at  the 
court  of  Hawaii  ? So,  again,  of  many  other  things  innocent, 
when  enjoyed  in  moderation,  the  enforced  abstinence  from 
which  is  very  likely  to  bewilder,  as  to  all  moral  distinctions,  the 
minds  of  a simple  uninformed  people,  making  them  confound 
“ the  tithing  of  mint,  anise  and  cummin,”  with  the  weightier 
matters  of  charity,  justice  and  truth.  Who  can  doubt  that  such 
a system  must  engender,  as  all  impartial  observers  contend  it 
has  done,  a fearful  amount  of  unreality  and  hypocrisy*  ? In  my 
first  sermon  in  this  place,  I remarked,  “ We  do  not  regard  reli- 


Note  E,  Appendix 


14 


gion  as  a system  of  frames  and  feelings  merely,  separate  from 
common  life.  It  is  to  leaven  and  hallow  all  the  instincts  of 
our  nature  not  to  crush  them.  It  is  therefore  not  a business  of 
one  day  in  seven — Sunday — (often  called,  I think,  most  falsely 
and  mischievously  the  Sabbath")  for  the  Church  provides  an 
order  of  prayer  to  be  said  daily  throughout  the  year.  On  her 
Christmas,  Easter,  Ascension  tide,  she  would  have  all  rejoice 
not  only  in  the  temple,  but  with  innocent  mirth  and  healthful 
recreation.  He  who  was  present  at  the  marriage  feast  of  Cana, 
in  Galilee,  and  turned  the  water  into  wine,  deigns  to  unite  with 
us,  if  we  drive  him  not  away  by  impurity  and  sin,  in  our  soaial 
and  festal  gatherings  no  less  than  in  seasons  of  sorrow  and  be- 
reavement. Surely  Christianity  is  not  all  sourness,  all  taboo  ! 
God  would  have  us  use  thankfully  and  in  moderation  all  His 
gifts,  not  abstain  from  their  use  altogether.  This  is  true  self- 
restraint,  this  real  temperance.’'  ' • 

And  if  I feel  that  to  leave  the  natives  no  choice  between  the 
attractive  licentiousness  of  their  former  holidays  and  amuse- 
ments on  the  one  hand,  and  the  unlovely  austerities  of  Congre- 
gational Puritanism  on  the  other,  was  calculated  to  work  mis- 
chief, and  it  is  generally  believed,  has  done  so,  there  is  yet 
another  point,  which,  without  “ignoring”  the  value  of  much 
that  the  Missionaries  have  accomplished,  we  cannot  overlook. 
Theirs  is  the  denominational,  ours  the  catholic  view  of  Christianity. 
I do  not  use  the  word  catholic  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  often 
used  as  implying  that  all  sects  stand  on  the  same  footing,  so  far 
as  their  claims  to  teach  God’s  truth  are  concerned — this  is  a pev- 


* Can  it  be  this  allusion  to  Sabbatarianism  which  has  led  to  the  Boston 
Board’s  accusing  me  of  “ putting  contempt  on  the  Christian  Sabbath  ?’’  Sure'y 
they  rather  do  so,  who  have  taught  the  natives  here,  to  call  Monday  Paakahi, 
(First  day,)  Tuesday  Poalua,  (Second  day.) — Sunday  Poahiku,  (Seventh  day  !) 
or  Sabalt.  Thus  leading  them  to  confuse  the  glorious  (estival  sacred  to  our  Lord  s 
Resurrection,  with  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  The  Missionaries  justify  this  •*  pious 
fraud,”  on  the  grounl  of  its  greater  simplicity,  as  the  institution  can  there  be 
made  to  rest  immediately  on  the  Fourth  Commandment.  Be  this  a6  it  may,  I 
am  sure,  that  all  who  have  attended  our  ministrations  will  bear  witness,  that 
by  none  is  the  religious  observance  of  the  Lord’s  day  maintained  more  strictly 
than  by  their  Bishop  and  Clergy ; in  no  other  place,  could  they  have  more  op- 
portunities of  worshipping  “ the  Lord  in  the  beauty  of  holiness,”  than  in  their 
own  Church. 


15 


version  of  the  term* — nor  as  synonymous  with  Roman.  It  is 
true.  Rome  arrogates  to  herself  that  title  ; we  deny  her  not  to  be 
a branch  of  the  Church,  though  she  has  in  many  points  sadly 
erred  from  the  Catholic  faith,  and  from  Catholic  practice.  I 
use  the  term  as  it  was  used  in  the  first  three  centuries,  (the 
purest  age  of  the  Church,)  as  applying  to  the  one  visible  histo- 
ric body  which  has  descended  in  unbroken  continuity  from  the 
days  of  the  Apostles  to  our  own.  We  believe  that  whatever 
good  other  societies  of  Christians  have  done,  who  have  left  that 
ancient  Apostolic  organization,  1 mean  the  Episcopal,  be  they 
Meletians,  Donatists,  Independents,  Methodists,  etc.,  and  we 
judge  them  not — God  forbid — yet  it  is  through  that  one.  visible 
Body,  the  Catholic  Church,  we  can  alone  taste  the  fulness  of 
God's  love  and  assure  to  ourselves  the  presence  of  Him  who  hath 
promised  to  be  with  it  “ to  the  end  of  the  world.”  This  is  the 
teaching  of  the  Anglo-American  Church,  and  of  her  150  Bishops 
everywhere  with  few  exceptions.  Let  me  read  to  you  some 
words  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Kip.  Bishop  of  California,  from  his 
“ delineation  of  the  true  Catholic  Churchman. 

“ The  very  name  which  he  bears  proclaims  the  principles  by 
which  he  will  be  directed.  He  has  received  his  title  from  no 
human  teacher.  He  assumes  the  badge  of  no  mere  sect.  He 
shares  in  that  jealous  vigilance  which  induced  S.  Paul  so  sternly 
to  chide  the  Corinthians,  because  one  party  said  ‘We  are  of 
Paul,7  and  another,  • We  are  of  Apollos,7  and  another.  ‘We  are 
of  Cephas.7  And  this  feeling  the  primitive  believers  bequeath- 
ed to  those  who  came  after  them  in  the  early  Church.  ‘We 
take  not.’  says  S.  Chrysostom,  ‘our  appellation  from  men.  We 
have  no  leaders  as  the  followers  of  Marcion  or  Anus.7  Bingham 
states  that  when  Sempronian,  the  Novatian  heretic,  demanded  of 
Pacian  the  reason  why  Christians  called  themselves  Catholics, 
he  replied,  ‘ To  distinguish  them  from  heretics.7  ‘ Christian,7 
he  says,  ‘is  my  name,  and  Catholic  my  surname  ; the  one  is  my 


* A lady  now  in  these  islands  told  me  that,  meeting  the  Rev.  Dr.  Anderson, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Boston  Board  of  Missions,  during  his  visit  in  1 8t>3 , she 
mentioned  to  him,  in  the  course  of  a conversation,  that  she  was  still  unbaptized. 
He  thereupon  offered  to  baptize  her  himself.  The  lady  expressed  her  fears  that 
“ she  would  then  be  necessarily  connected  with  the  Presbyterian  denomination, 
and  she  preferred  the  Episcopal  church.”  u Not  at  all,”  said  the  Dr.,  “I  will 
baptize  you  into  the  Church  Catholic,  without  connecting  you  with  any  visible 
body  of  Christians  in  particular!”  May  I venture  to  recommend  to  this  emi- 
nent Divine,  the  study  of  Bishop  Pearson  on  that  article  of  the  Creed,  “ I be- 
lieve in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church.” 


16 


title,  the  other  my  mark  of  distinction.’  Such  was  the  feeling 
of  these  early  saints.  Leaving  to  those  sects  which  started  up 
on  every  side  to  name  themselves  after  their  leaders,  they  still 
kept  to  that  general  appellation  which  was  made  expressive  of 
unity  and  relationship  to  their  Lord.  The  Churchman  of  this 
day  has  inherited  these  views,  and  by  the  name  ‘ Catholic 
Churchman’  he  expresses  both  his  allegiance  to  his  Divine  Mas- 
ter and  to  that  Apostolic  Church  He  founded.  Again,  other 
religious  bodies  endeavor  to  adapt  themselves  to  the  spirit  of 
the  times,  and  thus  are  drawn  into  the  current,  but  the  Church 
does  not — age  after  age  she  alone  remains  unalterable,  while  all 
else  is  changing.” 

Hear,  also,  Bishop  DeLancey  : 

“ Among  the  thousand  evils  which  result  from  the  endless 
subdivisions  of  Christian  men  into  independent  organizations,  is 
a miserable  waste  of  ministerial  efficiency,  and  augmented  ex- 
pensiveness in  sustaining  religion.  Is  there  any  effectual  cure 
for  this  but  a return  to  the  ‘ one  body  of  Christ  ?’  ” 

In  his  charge  to  the  clergy  of  his  diocese,  1863,  Dr.  Whipple^ 
Bishop  of  Minnesota,  observes  : 

“Loyalty  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  loyalty  to  His  Church, 
and  there  is  no  lack  of  charity  in  maintaining  the  oneness  of  the 
Church  of  Christ.  I know  of  only  one  Church  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  it  was  visible,  planted  by  the  Apostles,  and  against 
it  the  gates  of  hell  have  not  prevailed.  I know  of  only  one 
ministry,  with  its  threefold  orders,  in  that  one  Catholic  Church 
of  Christ.  I only  know  of  one  Christian  faith  proclaimed  by 
that  one  ministry  in  that  one  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church. 
I know  of  only  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  set  forth  in  the 
Revelation  of  God.  An  invisible  Church  is  too  ethereal  for 
this  work-day  world.  It  does  not  realize  our  need  of  brother- 
hood ; it  does  not  give  effectiveness  to  organization.  It  has  no 
guarantee  of  faith  or  discipline,  and  leaves  no  mark  on  history. 
We  admit  the  purity,  the  faithfulness  and  piety  of  many,  not  In 
the  Church.  But  this  no  more  absolves  from  loyalty  to  Christ, 
or  apologizes  for  Christian  divisions  and  sects,  than  morality  will 
excuse  an  upright  liver  for  neglect  of  Holy  Baptism.” 

Now,  the  continuity  of  this  Holy  Catholic  Church  depends  on 
the  ordaining  power  of  the  Bishops.  Rend  over  what  is  said  in 
the  preface  to  the  Ordination  service  in  your  Prayer  Books,  and 
then  the  service  itself,  and  can  you  doubt  what  the  principles  of 
the  Church  really  are — that  in  fact  she  refuses  to  take  her  stand 
among  the  various  persuasions  of  the  day  ; that  her  Christi- 


17 


anity  is  something  definite,  something  transmitted  down  to  us 
in  creeds  and  formularies,  in  a prescribed  and  visible  organi- 
zation. Now,  you  will  see  at  once,  here  is  a new  element  to  be 
added  to  and  infused  into  the  pre-existent  Christianity  of  Ha- 
waii, and,  as  honest  men  true  to  our  Church,  we  cannot  ignore 
so  vital  a principle.  How  is  it  we  see  so  little  fixity  in  the  va- 
rious Protestant  sects  around  us,  each  splitting  up  into  new  and 
new  fragments  ; each,  from  possessing  no  dogmatic  teaching, 
eventuating  in  fanaticism  and  infidelity,  or  in  secessions,  through 
mere  disgust,  to  the  Roman  Communion  ? The  Presbyterian 
places  of  worship  licensed  under  the  Act  of  Toleration  in  the 
reign  of  William  the  Third,  and  made  over  forever  to  that  body, 
are  now  held  by  Unitarian  teachers,  who,  in  England,  call  them- 
selves in  consequence  Presbyterians.  How  is  it  that  the  Congre- 
gationalist  Missionaries  all  bear  testimony,  and  you  remark  the 
same  yourselves,  that  Romanism  is  gaining  so  firm  a footing  on 
these  Islands,  holdimg  out  the  prospect  of  the  people,  if  they  sur- 
vive long  enough,  altogether  becoming  Roman  Catholic  ; and 
this,  too,  notwithstanding  a start  later  by  fifteen  years  than  that 
of  the  Calvinists,  and  persecutions,  I might  add,  from  ai  preacher- 
ridden  Court,  which  would  have  disgraced  the  times  of  a Tudor 
or  a Stuart  ? Why  ? but  because  this  denominational  system, 
without  creeds*  without  formularies,  is  no  match  for  the  com- 
pact and  solid  organization  of  Rome. 

Another  characteristic  of  this  denxymi national  Christianity,  is 
the  little  weight  it  attaches  to  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  Baptism. 
Look  out  the  Hawaiian  word  for  Sacrament  in  the  vocabulary 
drawn  up  by  the  Calvinist  teachers  at  the  Lahainaluna  Semi- 
nary : “ Sacrament,  0 ka  Ahaaina  o ka  Haku.”  That  is,  “ the 
Supper  of  the  Lord.”  It  seems,  therefore,  they  do  not  regard 
baptism  as  a sacrament  at  all,  though  expressly  enjoined  by  the 
Lord  himself  as  necessary  to  salvation.  (John  iii.,  2.)  It  is 
their  practice  generally  to  refuse  to  administer  this  holy 
rite  to  any  but  members  of  their  sect  or  children  of  such 

* I am  told,  on  the  best  authority,  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  any  one 
in  this  so-called  Christian  nation,  (except  among  the  Roman  Catholics  or  our- 
selves,) be  they  adults  or  children,  that  can  repeat  accurately  the  Apostles’ 
Creed,  or  in  fact  has  ever  heard  of  its  existence. 

3 


18 


members.  We  baptized,  soon  after  our  arrival,  many  infants  to 
whom  they  had  previously  refused  baptism,  taking  care  first  to 
provide  them  with  suitable  sponsors.  Let  this  fact  go  forth  to 
the  eternal  disgrace  of  those  whom  it  may  concern,  that  he, 
whom  the  Missionaries  delight  to  honour  as  their  best  patron 
AND  FRIEND,  AS  THE  FOUNDER  OF  HAWAIIAN  LIBERTIES,  THE  GOOD 

King  Kamehameiia  the  III.,  though  most  anxious  to  receive 
this  Holy  Sacrament,  was  allowed  to  die  unbaptized. 

of  THE  WORDS  “ REFORMED  ” AND  “ CATHOLIC  ” AS  APPLIED  TO  THE 
HAWAIIAN  CHURCH. 

From  what  has  been  said  may  be  inferred  why  we  chose  the 
name  “ Reformed  Catholic.”  The  first  word  recognizing  the 
fact  of  the  Reformation,  when  the  Anglican  Church  cleansed 
herself  from  the  accretions,  which  had  grown  round  her  in  the 
middle  ages,  and  the  second  asserting  her  claim  to  be  a branch 
of  that  one  visible  historic  Church  transmitted  down  from  the 
beginning.  I may  state  in  vindication  of  this  term,  that  at  a 
recent  convention  of  the  Church  in  the  United  States,  it  was 
proposed  to  substitute  it  for  the  present  designation,  which  was 
unsatisfactory  to  some  of  the  Bishops  and  Clergy,  of  “ Pro- 
testant Episcopal.”  In  the  volume  of  Bampton  Lectures, 
delivered  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Jelf,  Principal  of  King’s  Church, 
London,  one  of  our  most  learned  and  moderate  divines,  page 
378,  you  will  find  he  speaks  of  “ the  Reformed  Catholic  Church 
of  England.”  In  the  prospectus  originally  put  forth  in  London 
regarding  this  mission  mention  is  made  of  “ the  two  great 
branches  of  the  Reformed  Catholic  Church  in  England  and 
America.”  I might  quote  other  authorities  for  this  title,  but 
let  these  suffice.*  Well — it  is  probably  this  designation  which 

• If  I could  have  foreseen  the  use,  which  wne  to  be  made,  of  this  name  “Re- 
formed Catholic,”  among  the  more  simple,  ignorant  natives,  by  men  wholly  un- 
scrupulous in  their  misrepresentations  of  the  character  of  our  mission,  I should 
have  paused  beforo  adopting  it.  The  report  was  studiously  propagated  by  the 
Puritan  Missionaries,  in  their  several  districts,  that  we  were  not  “the  real 
Church  of  England  sent  for  by  the  King,  but  a sect  of  semi-papists  who  had 
left  that  Church  and  como  to  Hawaii.”  That  the  word  “Catholic”  meant 
“ Popish,”  and  that  by  it  we  intended  to  imply  wo  were  n slight  improvement 
on  the  Faranis  (French  Priests.)  Generally  the  people  designate  the  several 
Christian  communions  in  the  islands  by  their  nationalities.  The  Congrega- 
tionalist  preachers  are  careful  to  represent  their  communion  as  the  American 


19 


has  led  the  American  Board  to  declare  that  we  “ renounce  th e 
tiatne  Protestant 

The  Church  of  England  never  assumed  the  name,  and  there 
fore  I suppose,  she  cannot  “ renounce  ” it.  There  is  no  instance 
of  its  being  applied  to  her  in  the  Prayer  Book,  Homilies,  or 
Thirty-Nine  Articles,  nor  any  other  of  her  authorized  documents. 
Still,  I grant,  she  is  frequently  spoken  of  as  a Protestant  Church, 
where  the  occasion  requires  her  anti-Roman  aspect  to  be  made 
prominent.  Whilst  at  her  coronation,  the  Queen  of  Great 
Britain  swore  to  maintain  “the  Catholic  Faith,”  she  engaged 
also  “to  defend  the  rights  of  the  Protestant  Church  of  England,” 
an  epithet  intended  to  assert  strongly  her  independence  of  the 
Papal  see.  Here  and  in  all  such  cases  there  is  an  object  to  be 
gained  in  using  an  appellation  which  asserts  nothing  positive, 
and  merely  tells  us  what  the  Church  is  not.  It  is  not  such  a 
legitimate  use  as  this,  which  the  Board  of  Congregational  and 
Presbyterian  Missions  at  Boston  wishes  us  to  make  of  the 
word  Protestant.  No.  What  they  want  is  to  place  our  Holy 
Mother,  the  ancient  Catholic  Church  of  England,  with  all  her 
great  and  glorious  memories  on  the  same  platform  with  the 
Congregationalism  founded  by  a Brown,  or  the  Quakerism  of  a 
George  Fox,  and  with  all  the  other  “isms”  that  have  afflicted 
the  Protestant  world  during  the  last  300  years.  I will  only  add 
more  on  this  subject  that  the  word  “Reformed”  expresses  with 
sufficient  clearness,  that  the  Hawaiian  branch  of  the  Anglo- 
American  Church  has  no  sympathy  with  distinctively  Roman 
teaching. 

Church.  The  natives  thiuk  it  is  the  only  one  in  the  United  States.  The  arrival 
of  the  Rev.  P.  Gallagher,  M.  A.,  an  Episcopal  Clergyman,  from  Geneva,  N.  Y., 
to  take  part  in  our  work,  greatly  confuses  their  ideas.  One  of  the  leading  Ha- 
waiian members  of  our  Church  recently  heard  a native  Kalavina  boasting  that 
the  great  Washington  belonged  to  theirs  the  American  Church.  “ No,”  re- 
plied our  friend,  “ He  was  one  of  us!”  “How  so?”  “Because  he  was  born, 
bred  and  died  in  the  communion  of  the  old  Church  planted  by  the  Church  of 
England  in  the  United  States,  when  they  were  Colonies.  The  Congregation- 
alists  are  only  a sect."  The  information  was,  I need  not  say,  quite  new. 


20 


WE  REFUSE  “TO  ACKNOWLEDGE  THEIR  STANDING  AS  MINISTERS  OF 

CHRIST.” 

Merely  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Episcopal  Church  whether  in 
England  or  the  United  States  refuses  to  acknowledge  it.  A Bo- 
cnan  or  Greek  priest  coming  over  to  that  communion  is  required 
simply  to  make  the  usual  subscriptions.  He  is  never  re-ordained. 
A Presbyterian  or  Independent  preacher  doing  the  same,  has  to 
submit  to  ordination  at  the  hands  of  a Bishop.  Why  ? Because 
it  is  in  the  very  constitution  of  an  episcopal  church  that  the 
Bishops,  as  the  lineal  representatives  of  the  Twelve,  can  alone 
confer  valid  orders.  Well!  coming  here,  we  wished  to  hold 
this  principle  in  all  charity.  We  had  no  desire  to  raise  the 
question  of  their  clerical  status  at  all.  We  simply  wished  to  be 
let  alone,  and,  in  conformity  with  the  system  and  spirit  of  our 
Church,  to  do  the  work  which  God  had  assigned  us  to  do  for 
Him,  quietly  and  without  giving  offence  to  any.  Such,  how- 
ever, was  not  the  course  permitted  us.  Immediately  after  our 
arrival,  it  was  resolved  to  put  us  into  an  attitude  of  hostility  at 
once.  We  were  invited  to  meet  them  upon  a basis  not  of  social 
but  ecclesiastical  equality.  Perhaps  our  Puritan  friends  wished 
to  place  us  on  the  horns  of  this  dilemma,  either  publicly  to  ab- 
jure a vital  principle  of  the  Church  or  to  seem  wanting  in 
Christian  charity.  Be  this  as  it  may,  we  acted  as  every  consis- 
tent clergyman,  whether  in  England  or  America  * would  have 
done  under  the  same  circumstances. 

WE  “HAVE  BEEN  WANTING  IN  COURTESY  TO  THE  AMERICAN  MISSION- 
ARIES.” 

To  this  I give  an  unqualified  contradiction.  In  social  life  I 
recognize  no  religious  distinctions.  With  several  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Hawaiian  Evangelical  Association  I exchange  visits 
and  count  them  among  my  friends.  But  I certainly  cannot  say 
that  it  is  my  wish  to  be  on  such  terms  with  all  of  them.  I have 
no  sympathy,  and  possibly  may  even  manifest  displeasure,  with 
men  who  "are  not  ashamed  to  speak  evil  of  dignities;”  who 
sow  disloyalty  and  sedition  among  the  native  population  ; who 


Note  F,  Appendix. 


21 


trade  on  their  superstitious  fears  ; who  significantly  hint  that 
God  is  plaguing  this  land,  and  has  killed  their  Prince  and  King 
because  of  the  presence  here  of  an  English  Bishop  ; who  pro- 
pagate such  slanders  as  this,  that  he  is  a political  emissary  plot- 
ting to  undermine  the  independence  of  the  Kingdom  and  rob 
them  of  their  liberties.  Such,  be  they  who  they  may,  I have 
no  desire  to  know.* 

THE  ARRANGEMENT  WHICH  WOULD  HAVE  BEEN  SATISFACTORY  TO  THE 
AMERICAN  BOARD  OF  MISSIONS. 

We  are  told  in  the  Report,  that  it  is  the  presence  of  the 
Church  in  her  integrity  and  completeness — which  is  offensive. 

“The  settlement  of  a Protestant  Episcopal  Minister  at  Hono- 
lulu, would  have  been  welcomed  by  us  as  an  occasion,  not  of  com- 
plaint, but  of  congratulation.  His  success  in  gathering  a con- 
gregation of  Episcopalians  from  among  the  foreign  residents,  and 
in  ministering  to  the  moral  and  religious  improvement  of  the 
royal  family,  would  have  given  joy  to  our  missionaries  and  to  us. 
Nor  could  any  complaint  have  arisen  if  he  had  received  ever  so 
many  native  converts  into  his  own  communion.  Whether  the 
peculiar  ritual  and  ecclesiastical  arrangements  of  Protestant 
Episcopacy  t are  suited  to  promote  the  Christian  life  and  pro- 
gress of  the  Hawaiian  people  is  a question  worthy  to  be  solved 
bv  a fair  experiment,  and  to  such  an  experiment,  neither  we  nor 
our  missionaries  would  have  offered  any  hindrance.” 

I leave  it  to  the  Board  to  show  how  “ Protestant  Episcopacy 
with  its  ritual  and  ecclesiastical  arrangements,”  could  receive  a 
fair  experiment  without  a Bishop.  One  of  “ the  ecclesiastical 
arrangements,”  of  “ Protestant  Episcopacy,”  is  Confirmation. 

* In  his  work  on  the  islands,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Anderson,  speaking  of  the  rela- 
tions of  the  Clergy  with  the  members  of  the  Hawaiian  Evangelical  Association, 
says,  “ There  was  no  collision,  the  common  civilities  of  life  were  reciprocated.” 
The  Doctor,  in  illustration,  might  have  had  the  candour  to  state,  that  as  soon 
as  possible  after  his  arrival,  the  English  Bishop,  and  Presbyters  called  upon 
him  in  a body,  to  pay  him  their  respects,  and,  that  it  was  owing  to  a very 
recent  bereavement  in  the  Bishop's  family,  as  was  subsequently  explained, 
that  Dr.  A.  did  not  receive  from  him  further  attentions. 

f Observe — in  spite  of  the  attempt  to  make  out  that  our  system,  because  the 
Church  is  called  Reformed  Catholic,  is  something  different  from  Protestant 
Episcopacy ; and  on  that  account  only  does  not  meet  the  approval  of  the  Boston 
Board — the  truth  comes  out,  in  the  doubt  here  suggested,  about  the  suitable- 
ness of  Protestant  Episcopacy  to  the  Islands.  Their  objection  in  reality  is  not 
to  names.  That  is  all  a miserable  sham.  It  is  to  the  whole  Church  system, 
call  it  what  you  may,  when  not  pared  down  to  the  Puritan  ideal. 


22 


Perhaps  the  Board  considered  this  holy  rite  a matter  of  indif- 
ference. or  would  have  left  its  celebration  to  the  solitary  “ Epis- 
copal Minister,”  whose  arrival  would  have  been  “ welcomed  ” by 
them  with  so  much  ‘‘joy  and  congratulation.”  Suffice  it  to  say 
on  this  point,  that  the  Anglo-American  Church  does  not  usually 
send  out  its  Missions  abroad  without  placing  them  under  Episco- 
pal control.  The  rapid  growth  of  her  Missionary  Episcopate  of 
late  years  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  is  a proof  that  she  is  fully  alive 
to  her  duties  in  this  respect.  But  I wish  you  particularly  to 
notice  the  varied  functions  which  are  assigned  in  this  appeal  to 
the  unfortunate  Protestant  Episcopal  Minister,  who  was  to  be 
so  heartily  welcomed  at  Honolulu. 

First.  He  was  to  “ gather  a congregation  of  Episcopalians 
from  among  the  foreign  residents.”  Second.  He  was  “ to  min- 
ister to  the  moral  and  religious  improvement  of  the  royal  family.” 
Third.  He  was  to  be  “ tutor  to  the  infant  prince.”  Fourth. 
He  might  expect  that  he  would  have  to  “ receive  ever  so  many 
native  converts  into  his  own  communion.”  Fifth.  I might  add, 
though  not  stated  in  the  document  before  me,  it  was  hoped  that 
he  would  be  able  to  educate  the  sons  of  11  the  Episcopal  ” resi- 
dents. 

Why,  brethren,  these  (except  unhappily  the  third  mentioned 
one)  are  the  very  duties  which  the  Church  has  been  attempting  in 
Honolulu,  since  its  inauguration,  duties  to  discharge  which  effi- 
ciently overtaxes  the  powers  even  of  a Bishop  and  two  Presby- 
ters. If  it  would  have  been  a cause  “ not  of  complaint  but  of 
congratulation  ” to  our  Puritan  friends  here,  and  to  their  pat- 
rons in  America,  to  see  the  work  which  they  lay  down  for  “ the 
Church  to  do  in  this  city,  going  on  at  all,  should  they  not 
rejoice  far  more  to  think  that  that  work  is  being  well,  instead  of 
badly  done?  Think  of  this  poor  isolated  over-worked  Priest, 
with  all  these  “ irons  in  the  tire,”  cut  oil'  from  all  sympathy  with 
his  fellow  priests,  deprived  of  that  episcopal  direction,  which  he 
had  learnt  to  love  as  his  blessed  heritage,  his  only  clerical  friends, 
Presbyterian  and  Independent  “ preachers,”  the  only  variety- 
in  his  monotonous  life,  an  occasional  invitation  to  exchange  pul- 
pits, or  take  part  with  them  in  their  “ religious  exercises.” 


And  what  Board  with  any  bowels,  with  any  of  the  milk  of  hu- 
man kindness  in  its  veins,  ought  not  to  be  moved  to  pity.  Yet. 
we  are  told,  from  its  official  lips,  “ no  complaint  would  have  aris- 
en!” How  is  it,  brethren,  that  for  twenty  years  or  more  the 
shadow  of  this  “ episcopal  minister”  has  been  continually  cross- 
ing your  path  ? Turn  through  the  volumes  of  your  old  news- 
papers from  1845  downwards,  and  you  will  find  accounts  of  meet- 
ings held,  money  promised,  letters  written  to  churchmen  in 
England  and  America — yet  (he  man  never  to  be  had.  No  ; be* 
. cause  it  is  evident  uo  man  worth  having,  no  man  of  any  princi- 
ple even,  could  occupy  such  a position.  And  it  is  just  possible 
that  one  reason  why  the.  board  at  Boston  and  the  Calvinist  min- 
isters here,  would  have  uttered  “ no  complaint,”  and  would  even 
have  rejoiced,  if  the  Church  of  England  had  limited  her  action 
to  sendiug  just  one  clergyman  to  Honolulu,  was  the  very  obvi- 
ous one  that  they  knew  well  enough  from  past  experience  that 
this  new  attempt  would  fail  as  others  had  done  before  it. 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  MISSION. 

The  Boston  board  has  no  wish  to  “ impute  blame  to  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States,  or  to  the 
authorities  of  the  established  Church  of  England.”  For  such 
condescension  and  moderation,  we  must  of  course,  be  very  thank- 
ful. Even  “ the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  consecrating  a 
Bishop  for  this  enterprise,  acted  simply  under  a political  neces- 
sity. the  King  of  Hawaii  having  been  represented  as  asking 
that  favour  of  the  British  Government.”  We  have  read  many 
discussions  of  late  on  the  action  of  the  royal  supremacy  in  mat- 
ters spiritual  in  the  English  church.  But  our  Puritan  friends  in 
America  seem  to  stretch  its  prerogatives  to  the  very  furthest  con- 
ceivable limits  when  they  suppose  that  the  Primate  of  the  church 
is  under  a “ political  necessity”  to  consecrate,  whenever  he  is  or- 
dered to  do  so  by  the  British  Government!  while  the  British  Gov- 
ernment is  under  a “political  necessity,”  to  grant  whatever  fa- 
vours the  King  of  Hawaii  may  choose  to  ask ! It  would  therefore 
seem  possible,  that  the  supremacy  of  the  English  Crown  over 
the  church,  might,  under  given  conditions,  be  found  flowing 


24 


from  the  sole  will  of  the  Hawaiian  Monarch,  a view  which 
has,  at  least,  the  recommendation  of  novelty. 

“ Nor  does  the  enterprise  proceed  from  either  of  the  two 
great  societies,  through  which  the  members  of  the  Church  of 
England  conduct  their  foreign  missions.  It  represents  nothing 
more  than  a sect  or  party  in  it,  a sect  which  happily  for  our 
common  Christianity  is  far  less  formidable  in  its  influence  than 
it  was  twenty  years  ago.” 

To  all  these  assertions,  my  best  reply  will  be  a brief  recapi- 
tulation of  the  steps  which  led  to  the  establishment  of  this  mis- 
sion. • 

It  was  no  new  occurrence  in  the  history  of  this  Kingdom, 
when  one  of  its  sovereigns  asked  for  a clergyman  of  our  Re- 
formed church,  to  be  sent  to  him  from  England.  You  are  all 
familiar  with  the  request  made  by  Kamehameha  the  First 
through  Vancouver,  one,  which,  owing  to  indifference  of  the 
times,  unhappily  proved  without  effect.  I have  been  told,  on 
authority  which  may  not  be  lightly  questioned,  that  Liholiho 
had  similar  aims  in  view  when  he  visited  England  in  1823.  Be 
this  as  it  may,  during  the  last  fifteen  years,  several  efforts  to 
obtain  an  episcopal  clergyman  from  that  country  were  made, 
but  always  without  effect.  The  sympathy  of  his  late  Majesty 
with  the  constitution  and  liturgy  of  the  Church  led  to  a renew- 
ed attempt,  as  you  have  already  heard.  He  had  the  modesty  to 
ask  only  for  one  man,  because  the  pecuniary  resources  at  his  dis- 
posal seemed  barely  enough  to  justify  him  even  in  that.  When, 
however,  benevolent  and  earnest  churchmen  felt  that  if  the 
mission  were  to  be  undertaken  at  all,  it  ought  to  be  of  no  such 
fragmentary  kind,  representations  were  made,  through  the  prop- 
er channel,  of  the  advantages  to  the  church,  which  would  re- 
sult from  sending  out  a Bishop.  At  the  same  time,  no  addi- 
tional guarantees  in  the  way  of  support  were  required  from  His 
Majesty  than  those  which  he  had  already  pledged.  I need  not 
tell  you  with  how  much  pleasure  he  assented  to  this  unlooked  for 
proposal.  Early  in  the  year  1861,  he  wrote  an  autograph  letter 
to  Her  Majesty,  Queen  Victoria.  Soon  after  it  had  been  re- 
ceived, in  the  month  of  April,  a debate  took  place  in  the  House 
of  Convocation  of  .Prelates  of  the  Province  of  Canterbury,  on 


the  subject  of  Missionary  Bishops,  in  the  course  of  which  the 
Bishop  of  Oxford  stated  : 

“ That  the  King  of  the  Sandwich  Island  was  most  anxious  to 
see  a Bishop  of  the  English  Church  established  in  his  dominions. 
His  Majesty  mentioned,  that,  ‘according  to  the  Constitution  of 
his  kingdom,  no  established  Church  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
term  can  be  formed  there,  that  all  creeds  are  left  free,  to  be 
supported  by  voluntary  contributions.’  He  proposes  to  make 
the  Bishop  preceptor  to  the  Crown  Prince.  He  thought  it  best 
to  communicate  with  the  Queen,  and  wrote  a letter  in  most  ex- 
cellent English,  begging  Her  Majesty  to  give  all  the  assistance 
she  can  in  sending  out  a Bishop  of  the  Church  of  which  she  is 
the  temporal  head.  The  present  mail  has  brought  me  a letter 
from  the  Bishop  of  California,  who  points  out  the  importance  of 
making  the  Islands  a missionary  centre.  Further,  the  American 
Church  is  very  anxious  to  unite  with  the  Church  of  England  in 
this  work.  And  Bishop  Potter  states  that  they  will  undertake 
to  support  one  or  possibly  two  Missionary  Clergy,  to  work  with 
the  Bishop,  whom  the  Church  of  England  may  send  out.  All 
this  is  matter  of  the  deepest  interest  and  the  greatest  impor- 
tance, and  I think  it  most  important,  that  we  should  at  once 
consider  the  question.  If  God  opens  to  us  new  fields,  we  ought 
to  turn  our  attention  to  them,  and  to  occupy  them  in  a manner 
consistently  with  primitive  customs  and  primitive  practice,  and 
to  follow  out  historical  precedents  in  extending  the  Kingdom  of 
Christ.” 

The  invitation  of  the  King  to  our  Church,  being  thus  publicly 
and  formally  announced,  and  the  difficulty  to  its  acceptance  be- 
ing the  need  of  funds,  the  course  usual  under  such  circumstances 
was  taken.  Those  who  sympathized  with  the  object  came  to- 
gether and  formed  a committee,  consisting  of  church  dignita- 
ries, noblemen  and  gentlemen — men  they  were,  the  first  and 
foremost  in  every  good  work — men  raised  far  above  all  party 
considerations  or  sectarian  bias — several  of  them  members  of  the 
committees  of  the  two  venerable  Societies  for  the  Propagation 
of  the  Gospel  in  foreign  parts,  and  for  the  Promotion  of  Chris- 
tian knowledge. 

Within  one  month  after  the  Bishop  of  Oxford’s  speech  in 
Convocation  quoted  above,  the  statement  I now  read  was  pub- 
lished and  circulated  : 

“ Polynesian  Church. — The  committee  for  promoting  the 
establishment  of  a church  in  Honolulu,  in  communion  with  the 
churches  of  England  and  America,  having  taken  into  consider- 
4 


26 


ation  the  King  of  Hawaii's  desire  to  receive  a mission  from  the 
church  of  England  headed  by  a Bishop,  are  of  opinion  that 
measures  should  be  taken  for  fulfilling  the  desire  thus  put.  we 
trust,  by  God  into  the  heart  of  his  Majesty. 

That  having  respect  to  the  importance  of  these  islands  as  a 
probable  centre  of  Christian  influence  in  the  North  Pacific  Archi- 
pelago, as  well  as  to  the  immediate  needs  of  the  actual  popula- 
tion of  the  Hawaiian  group,  an  earnest  appeal  for  support  be 
made  to  the  Church  at  home. 

That  as  it  appears  by  letters  from  the  Bishop^  of  California 
and  New  York,  that  there  is  a readiness  on  behalf  of  the  Ame- 
rican church  to  unite  in  this  effort,  the  Committee  hail  with  * 
gratitude  to  God  such  an  opening  for  common  missionary  action 
between  the  two  great  branches  of  the  Reformed  Catholic 
church. 

That  the  Bishops  of  California  and  New  York  be  requested 
to  convey  to  the  church  in  America,  most  earnest  invitations 
from  this  committee  to  unite  in  the  work. 

The  city  of  Honolulu  contains,  besides  its  native  population, 
European  arid  American  residents.  The  French  Roman  Catho- 
lics possess  a cathedral,  with  a bishop,  clergy,  etc.,  and  the 
American  congregationalists  have  also  places  of  worship.  The 
King  offers  on  his  own  behalf  and  that  of  his  subjects,  and  resi- 
dents who  desire  the  establishment  of  the  English  Church,  a 
yearly  payment  of  <£200  and  to  give  the  site  for  a church,  par- 
sonage, etc.  It  is  also  probable  that  a grant  of  land  may  be 
made  for  the  future  support  of  the  mission.  The  resources  of 
the  islands  can  probably  not  do  much  more  at  present  than  this, 
and  the  committee  appeal  with  earnestness  to  their  fellow 
churchmen  to  assist  in  sending  forth  laborers  into  this  part  of  the 
Lord’s  vineyard.  The  authorities  of  the  American  church  have 
also  undertaken  to  select  and  maintain  three  clergymen  to  aid 
any  bishop  who  may  be  sent  out  from  this  country.” 

The  two  venerable  societies  to  which  I have  referred,  imme- 
diately signified  their  approval  of  the  movement  by  liberal  grants 
in  its  aid. 

The  following  August  he  who  now  addresses  you  was  desig- 
nated as  your  Diocesan,  by  his  Grace  the  late  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, the  venerable  Dr.  Sumner,  who,  I may  state,  was  fully 
alive  to  the  peculiar  trials  which,  notwithstanding  the  counte- 
nance and  support  of  the  King,  any  one  accepting  the  olfice 
might  expect  to  incur.  “ You  will  indeed  be  between  two  fires,” 
were  his  words  to  me  on  one  occasion.  After  some  discussion 
as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  consecration  should  be  effected, 
whether  with  or  without  any  action  on  the  part  of  the  Crown, 


27 


the  Lord  Chancellor  and  Attorney  General  finally  decided  that 
the  Royal  License  of  her  Majesty  would  be  necessary.  It  was 
granted,  and  on  the  15th  of  December  in  the  same  year,  1861, 
the  consecration  of  an  English  Bishop  for  the  newly  created 
see  of  Honolulu  took  place. 

I was  occupied  some  months  in  England  before  mv  departure 
in  collecting  funds  in  aid  of  the  establishment  and  futuro  main- 
tenance of  the  mission.  From  men  of  aU  parties  in  the  Church 
— for  I do  not  disguise  the  fact  that  she  does  allow  her  members 
in  matters  indifferent  a considerable  diversity  of  sentiment  and 
practice,  and  here  is  one  secret  of  her  strength — I received  to 
my  representations  a liberal  response.  In  that  interval  the 
venerable  Primate,  whose  truly  evangelical  spirit  and  character 
were  never  questioned,  was  pleased  to  express  to  me  several 
times  his  deep  interest  in  the  success  of  this  new  missionary 
enterprise,  and  I can  never  be  grateful  enough  to  him  for  the 
kindness  with  which  he  offered  me  his  fatherly  sympathy  and 
advice.  A few  days  before  leaving  England  I received  from  him 
some  lines  which  I may  be  permitted  to  read  : 

”My  dear  Bishop: — I am  much  gratified  by  your  kind  letter 
and  the  opportunity  which  it  gives  me  of  wishing  you  farewell, 
which  my  state  of  health  has  prevented  my  being  able  to  do,  as 
I could  have  wished,  in  person. 

I have  also  to  thank  you  for  the  Sermon  which  you  have  for- 
warded to  me,  and  the  assurance  which  I receive  from  it  (not 
that  I wanted  it  before)  that  the  blessing  of  the  Head  of  the 
Church  will  accompany  your  ministry. 

My  earnest  prayers  go  with  you  and  your  family,  devoting 
yourselves,  as  you  have  done,  to  a "work  which  few  would  have 
undertaken.  I shall  not  survive  on  earth  to  hear  of  the  success 
granted  you,  but  what  we  know  not  now  we  shall  know  here- 
after. 

Yours,  my  dear  Bishop,  sincerely, 

J.  B.  Cantu  ar.” 

In  a few  weeks  the  trembling  hand  which  must  have  penned 
these  loving  words  lay  cold  in  death.  The  present  Primate  has 
given  me  proofs  that  he  feels  the  same  interest  in  the  Hawaiian 
Church  as  his  predecessor.  With  him  and  other  prelates  in 
England — I might  add  also  in  America — I am.  from  time  to  time, 
in  correspondence.  During  the  last  year  a considerable  sum  has 


28 


been  pledged  towards  a fund  for  the  endowment  of  the  Bishop- 
ric. Among  the  donors  to  the  mission  since  its  commencement 
have  been  the  present  Archbishops  of  Canterbury,  York,  Dub- 
lin and  Armagh,  the  Bishops  of  London,  Oxford,  Chichester, 
Exeter,  Lichfield,  St.  Asaph,  with  other  dignitaries  of  the 
Church.  From  all  these  facts  you  will  be  able  to  appreciate 
the  truth  of  the  statement — one  no  doubt  intended  to  shake  the 
confidence  of  those  who  have  attached  themselves  to  us  in  these 
islands — that  this  mission  “ represents  nothing  more  than  a sect 
or  party  in  the  Church  of  England,  which,  happily  for  our  com- 
mon Christianity,  is  far  less  formidable  in  its  influence  than  it 
was  twenty  years  ago  !” 

“the  violation  of  the  law  of  comity.” 

The  words  which  conclude  this  appeal  to  the  public  opinion 
of  Protestant  Christendom  can  hardly  be  passed  over. 

“ Had  such  a measure  as  this  intrusive  mission  to  Hawaii  pro- 
ceeded from  any  Protestant  Missionary  Society,  or  from  any  re- 
cognized body  of  Evangelical  Christians,  it  would  have  been 
an  inexcusable  violation  of  the  law  of  comit}7,  which  is  respected 
spontaneously,  and  almost  universally,  by  Protestant  Mission- 
aries.” 

How  a mission  can  be  said  to  be  “intrusive,”  which  has  been 
invited  hither  by  successive  Sovereigns  of  this  nation  quali- 
fied, at  least,  by  their  sympathies  and  knowledge  to  judge 
what  was  best  for  the  moral  and  religious  elevation  of  their 
subjects,  I leave  to  this  Board  to  determine.  In  the  thirty- 
seventh  article  of  the  Church  of  England,  it  is  expressly  said, 
that  she  accords  “to  the  Sovereign  of  the  State  that  prerogative, 
which  we  see  to  have  been  always  given  to  Princes  in  Holy 
Scripture,  that  they  should  rule  all  states  and  degrees  committed 
to  their  charge  by  God,  whether  they  be  Ecclesiastical  or 
Temporal.” 

It  is  not  therefore  surprising  that  the  authorities  of  our 
Church  consented  to  plant  a branch  of  it  in  a Kingdom,  whose 
chief  magistrate  had  made  known  to  them,  through  the  proper 
channels,  his  eagerness  to  welcome  one.  Can  it  be  said  of 
either  of  the  other  two  forms  of  Christianity  now  in  the  Islands, 


29 


that  it  was  established  with  the  immediate  consent,  much  loss  on 
the  invitation  of  the  Chief  Ruler  of  the  State  ? Surely,  they 
are  far  more  open  to  the  charge  of  intrusion,  I might  almost  say, 
impertinent  meddling,  who  addressed  themselves,  unasked,  to 
the  Prelates,  both  in  England  and  America,  dictating  to  them 
what  kind  of  persons  they  should  send  out  on  this  mission,  and 
assigning  the  bounds  within  which,  according  to  their  united 
wisdom,  it  ought  to  be  restricted  ! 

But  observe,  “ this  mission  does  not  proceed  from  any  body 
of  Evangelical  Christians.”  None  will  question,  it  must  have 
“ proceeded  ” from  those  without  whose  official  action  or  private 
contributions,  it  could  not  have  been  initiated.  It  follows,  there- 
fore, that  his  late  Majesty  the  King  of  Hawaii,  her  Majesty  the 
Queen  of  Great  Britain,  who  granted  her  Royal  License  for  my 
consecration,  the  Four  Primates  of  the  United  Church  of  Eng- 
land and  Ireland,  the  other  Prelates,  whose  names  I have  men- 
tioned, the  Committees  of  the  venerable  Societies  for  Propaga- 
ting the  Gospel  and  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge  * 
belong  to  no  “ recognized  body  of  Evangelical  Christians.” 
This  fact  might  be  useful  in  enabling  us  to  arrive  at  some  ade- 
quate conception  of  what  so  called  “ Evangelical  Christianity”  is. 

Happily,  the  illustrious  persons  to  whom  I have  referred,  are 
not  recognized  as  within  the  pale  of  “Evangelical  Christiandom,” 
or  they  wotild  have  been  guilty  of  a very  heinous  crime  indeed. 
They  would  have  actually  violated  that  ‘‘‘‘law  of  comity"  which  is 
respected  spontaneously  among  all  Protestant  Missionaries. 
May  I ask  my  Puritan  brethren,  when  and  by  whom  this  law 
was  enacted  ? Where,  for  example,  did  the  Society  for  Propa- 
gating the  Gospel,  through  her  President,  the  Primate  of  the 
Church,  or  her  Vice  Presidents,  among  whom  is  the  whole  body 
of  Anglican  Bishops,  enter  into  any  such  compact  with  the  non- 
conformist missionary  associations  in  England  or  the  United 
States.  * I trust  for  the  sake  of  our  Presbyterian  and  Congre- 
gationalist  friends,  this  “ law  of  comity  ” is  some  airy,  intan- 
gible creation  of  their  own  conjuring  up,  having  no  actual  ex- 
istence. 

l 

* These  were  founded  1698  and  1701  A.  D.,and  incorporated  by  Royal  Char- 
ter. 


30 


The  Indian  Empire  of  Great  Britain  is  divided  into  dioceses, 
whose  Bishops  are  appointed  by  the  Crown.  There  and  in 
Ceylon.  English  Clergy  of  the  established  church,  minister  to 
the  spiritual  wants  of  the  foreign  residents  and  operate  among 
the  Hindoo  population.  Are  the  American  Presbyterian  mission- 
aries there  debarred  from  propagating  that  form  of  Christianity, 
which  they  believe  to  be  most  agreeable  to  Holy  Scripture? 
Are  they  told  by  the  Bishops  of  our  Indian  Church,  “ You  have 
no  business  here,  jrour  presence  is  an  intrusion.  We  have  re- 
ceived our  patents  from  her  Most  Gracious  Majesty,  the  Sove- 
reign of  our  country.  The  field  is  ours,  if  it  belong  to  any  one 
at  all.  For,  though  the  law  of  Toleration  allows  you  to  teach 
your  distinctive  tenets,  there  is  a certain  Taw  of  comity’  among 
the  various  missionary  societies,  never  to  enter  a field  where  an- 
other is  in  possession,  much  less  when  that  other  is  a Church  con- 
stituted according  to  law.  Go  labourers,  therefore,  elsewhere?” 
It  is  unfortunate  as  an  illustration  of  the  mode  in  which  this 
Board  applies  “ the  law  of  comity,”  that  in  the  Report  of  this 
very  year,  they  complain  that  by  the  new  constitution  of  Greece, 
they  are  not  allowed  to  proselytize  from  “ the  orthodox  Eastern 
Church  of  Christ  which  is  the  established  religion  of  the  coun- 
try.” (These  are  the  words  of  the  constitution  itself.)  But 
then,  the  Greek  Christians,  with  whom,  let  me  observe,  the 
Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States  is  trying  at  this  moment 
to  enter  into  more  intimate  communion,  are  not  a part  of  “ Evan- 
gelical Christendom  ” ! * 

It  would  be  more  to  the  point,  if  1 remind  the  Evangelical 
Christians,  who  assembled  at  the  late  annual  meeting  of  the 
Board.b  that  neither  in  their  domestic  missions  nor  in  foreign 

* The  hostility  of  the  Board  to  Episcopacy  as  such,  and  not  merely  because 
of  its  assuming  some  title  like  “ Reformed  nnd  Catholic,”  peeps  out  in 
this  very  Report.  Speaking  of  their  Eastern  Missions,  Dr.  Wood  says,  “ The 
Protestants,  some  10,000,  have  no  disposition  to  connect  themselves  with  any 
form  of  Church  Government,  least  of  all.  with  Episcopacy.”  A little  after 
speaking  still  of  the  native  converts  in  Turkey,  he  says,  “ There  is  n danger 
of  conflict  between  some  of  them  and  their  Missionaries,  the  former  desiring  to 
obtain  worldly  a (vantage  by  connecting  themselves  with  the  English  Church, 
under  the  Bishop  of  Malta.”  Consistent  and  charitable  ! 

| The  leaders  of  whom,  appear  to  he  Drs.  Rufus  Anderson,  Asa  Smith,  L. 
Bacon,  Seluli  Treat,  Messrs.  Small,  Dodge  and  others. 


31 


parts  do  they  ever  scruple  to  send  agents  where  the  Episcopal 
Church  or  Methodists  have  been  before  them.  The  question 
is  never  raised  at  all. 


CONCLUSION. 

m 

It  is  no  pleasing  task  which  I have  had  to  perform  this  day. 
Perhaps  it  may  be  said,  “Why  notice  misrepresentations,  why 
refute  calumnies  which  all  here,  except  those  who  have  an  in- 
terest in  their  propagation,  admit  to  be  so  untrue  ?”  But  we 
must  remember  there  is  a limit  even  to  forbearance,  a point 
where  silence  may  be  wrongly  construed. 

If  in  the  course  of  this  address  I have  unconsciously  spoken 
about  others  one  unkind  word,  or  done  them  any  wrong,  I can 
only  ask  their  forgiveness.  To  my  Christian  brethren,  if  they 
will  allow  me  so  to  call  them,  whether  of  the  Hawaiian  Evan- 
gelical Association  or  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  I wish  to 
say  that  I feel  no  animosity,  no  bitterness.  We  are  all  engaged 
according  to  our  several  systems  in  one  and  the  same  great  work 
of  “ winning  souls  to  Christ,”  of  saving  this  people  from  that 
physical  and  spiritual  death,  which  is  the  inevitable  “ wages  of 
sin.”  We  may  differ  widely  in  our  views  as  to  the  best  means 
of  accomplishing  our  object : we  may  feel  it  our  duty  to  warn 
our  flocks  against  what  we  think  to  be  erroneous  in  the  princi- 
ples of  our  rivals,  provided  we  fully  understand  what  those 
principles  are  ; but  let  us  distinguish  between  systems  and  in- 
dividuals. Let  us  remember  what  underlies  all  creeds,  all  forms 
of  worship,  is  the  great  law  of  charity  ; that  the  sincere  lover 
of  truth,  even  if  led  into  error,  may  be  nearer  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  than  one  who  prides  himself  on  his  supposed  orthodoxy 
but  is  deficient  in  humility.  Let  us  remember  that  what  we 
lose  in  common  by  exhibiting  our  miserable  divisions  in  the  face 
of  the  heathen,  exceeds  what  we  severally  gain  by  zeal  without 
love.  And  to  you,  the  clergy  and  laity  of  the  Church,  I would 
remark — be  not  discouraged.  If  in  this  remote  spot  of  the 
globe,  the  battle  between  modern  Puritanism  and  primitive 
Catholicity  is  to  be  fought,  let  our  opponents  know  we  are  ready 
to  meet  them.  We  have  sought,  in  the  quiet  and  regular  dis- 


32 


charge  of  our  sacred  duties,  to  avoid  unnecessary  collision.  But 
if  the  contest  is  forced  upon  us,  we  have  no  choice  but  to  ac- 
cept the  position.  Of  one  thing  be  assured — such  attacks  as 
these  instead  of  weakening  will  greatly  strengthen  us.  Here — 
for  the  atmosphere  of  opposition  in  the  case  of  every  new  en- 
terprise, especially  a sacred  one,  is  always  more  bracing,  more 
invigorating,  than  one  of  unqualified  prosperity.  Abroad — for 
those  who  sent  us  here  in  compliance  with  a Royal  invitation, 
will  not  sit  tamely  by  and  see  one  of  their  most  interesting  and 
hopeful  missions  crushed  by  the  intolerance  and  misrepresenta- 
tions of  narrow-minded  and  disappointed  sectaries.  “ Doubt 
not,”  then,  my  brethren,  but  “ earnestly  believe”  that  all  shall 
work  together  for  good,  and  that  you  shall  yet  see  the  off-shooot 
of  that  sacred  vine  which,  in  England  and  America,  “ God  hath 
made  so  strong  for  His  own  Self,”  overspreading  this  Kingdom 
with  its  goodly  branches,  taking  “ root  downwards  and  bearing 
fruit  upwards,”  even  the  fruit  of  “ that  Tree  of  Life  whose 
leaves  shall  be  for  the  healing  of  the  nations.” 


33 


ADDENDA- 


The  following  petition  was  presented  to  the  Bishop  shortly 
after  the  delivery  of  the  address  : 

“ We,  the  undersigned  members  of  the  congregation  worship- 
ing in  the  temporary  Cathedral  of  Honolulu,  having  had  the 
pleasure  of  hearing  your  Lordship’s  Pastoral  last  Sunday,  beg 
most  respectfully  to  suggest  that  it  be  printed  and  widely  cir- 
culated. 

"We  cannot  but  think  that  its  truthful,  moderate  and  charita- 
ble spirit,  iu  unison  with  all  your  Lordship's  teaching  during  the 
time  of  your  ministry  among  us,  is  eminently  calculated  to  undo 
the  mischievous  effect  of  the  very  uncalled  for  and  bitter  obser- 
vations contained  in  a recent  report  of  the  American  Board  of 
Presbyterian  and  Congregationalist  Missions.” 

[Signed  by  their  Majesties  the  King  and  Queen,  and  other 
occupants  of  seats  in  the  Church,  natives  and  foreigners.] 


34 


POSTSCRIPT. 


As  if  to  strengthen  my  assertion,  that  this  mission  was  un- 
dertaken in  the  hope  of  joint  action  with  the  American  Church, 
the  very  next  day  after  this  Pastoral  address,  the  Rev.  Peyton 
Gallagher,  M.  A.,  of  Geneva,  New  York,  arrived,  the  bearer 
of  letters  from  two  of  its  Bishops  and  other  eminent  clergy- 
men, expressing  their  sympathy  and  interest  in  the  progress 
of  the  infant  Church.  He  brought  with  him  as  an  offering  to 
the  Bishop,  a Missionary  Flag.  The  circumstances  of  its  pre- 
sentation are  related  in  the  Hawaiian  Gazette  for  January  the 
28th,  from  which  the  following  extract  is  quoted  : 

“ The  Feast  of  the  Conversion  of  St.  Paul. — On  Wednesday 
last,  at  P.  M.,  after  a short  service  in  the  Church,  Rev. 
Peyton  Gallagher,  M.  A.,  of  Geneva,  New  York,  presented  to 
the  Bishop  his  Missionary  Flag.  It  was  held  up  before  the  con- 
gregation by  two  of  the  choristers  during  the  observations  of 
the  Reverend  gentleman.’’  * * * 

After  explaining  that  the  Red  Cross  upon  it  signified 
the  message  of  “ redemption  through  the  Blood  of  the  Lamb,” 
and  the  thirteen  stars  “ Christ  and  His  Holy  Apostles,”  he 
spoke  as  follows  : 

“ In  the  wise  Providence  of  God  it  has  been  ordered  that  this 
flag  should  first  float  in  the  Islands  once  ruled  by  that  devoted 
servant  of  Christ  and  the  Church,  the  late  Sovereign  of  this 
realm,  Kamehameha  IV.,  Father  of  the  infant  Church,  planted 
by  the  mission  confided  to  the  care  of  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Hono- 
lulu, and,  unalterably  inwrought  into  its  very  texture,  is  a speak- 
ing witness  to  the  memory  of  his  name,  and  of  the  good  deeds 
by  him  done  ‘ for  the  House  of  our  God,  and  for  the  officers 
thereof.’ 

Presented  by  an  American  churchman  to  a Bishop  sent  by 
the  Church  and  Crown  of  England  to  these  Islands,  for  the 
promotion  of  their  spiritual  welfare,  and  at  the  call  of  the  then 
Sovereign  of  the  same,  it  comes  laden  with  the  hearty  sympa- 


35 


thy.  deep  interest,  and  earnest  prayers  of  those  the  Bishops, 
the  Clergy,  and  the  Laity  of  England’s  Daughter  Church,  who 
so  gladly  send  their  greeting  from  America. 

May  the  people  of  the  lands,  thus  united  in  the  Faith  of 
Christ,  so  walk  before  God  in  the  light  of  the  living,  according 
to  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Apostle  St.  Paul,  whose  wonderful 
conversion  and  preaching  of  the  Gospel  throughout  the  world 
this  day  commemorates,  as  that  they,  and  they,  to  whom  and 
for  whom,  they  minister  shall  rejoice  together  in  His  Presence, 
in  His  eternal  and  glorious  Kingdom.” 

Mr.  Gallagher  then  turning  round,  addressed  the  Bitehop,  who 
was  seated  on  his  throne. 

*•  Reverend  Father  in  God.  Into  the  hands  of  the  Right 
Reverend  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Honolulu,  Chief  Pastor  of  the 
Mission  so  kindly  cared  for  and  warmly  cherished  by  His 
Majesty,  the  reigning  Sovereign  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  and 
Her  Majesty  the  widowed  Queen  of  its  earliest  Friend,  do  I 
now  commit  the  ‘ Cross  and  Stars,’  a token  of  good-will  and 
fellowship  in  the  Faith.  May  it  indeed  prove  as  it  was  design- 
ed to  be,  a ‘ Christian  Mission  Flag,  a Banner  for  Christ  and 
the  Church.’  May  it  wave  where’er  it  goes  an  ensign  of  the 
Redeemer,  proclaiming  to  thousands  upon  thousands,  purchased 
by  His  most  precious  blood,  that  Christ  the  Lord,  who  was  born 
King  of  the  Jews,  in  the  city  of  David,  having  put  away  sin  by 
the  sacrifice  of  Himself,  that  through  death  He  might  destroy 
him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is  the  Devil,  and  ascended 
upon  high  that  ‘ He  might  fill  all  things,’  is  ‘ a Light  to  lighten 
the  Gentiles,  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  the  Judge  of  quick  and 
dead,  the  Head  of  all  principality  and  power,  the  Head  over  all 
things  to  the  Church  which  is  His  Body,  the  Fulness  of  Him 
that  filleth  all  in  all.’  ” 

This  very  eloquent  address  being  concluded,  it  was  delivered 
in  Hawaiian  from  a written  translation,  by  Mr.  Kahalewai,  Lay 
Reader  of  the  Church,  after  which  the  Rev.  Mr.  Gallagher 
placed  the  flag  in  the  hands  of  the  Bishop.  His  Lordship 
replied  as  follows  : 

“ My  Reverend  Brother  : — I gladly  and  thankfully  accept,  on 
behalf  of  the  Church  committed  to  my  care,  this  vour  gift — 
whose  sacred  significance  you  have  so  well  and  beautifully  ex- 
plained. 

Accompanied  with  the  sympathies  and  prayers  of  Bishops 
and  Clergy  of  the  United  States,  it  comes  a token  of  our  Chris- 
tian fellowship  and  inter-communion  with  one  of  the  purest 
branches  on  earth  of  Christ’s  Holy  Catholic  Church.  But  I see 


36 


in  it  something  more  even  than  this.  Borne  to  these  shores  by 
a Presbyter  of  “England’s  daughter  Church”  in  America,  it  is 
an  earnest  of  an  early,  and,  let  us  hope,  complete  fulfilment  of 
that  purpose  of  co-operation,  in  full  reliance  on  which  our  Holy 
Mother  consented  to  take  the  initiative  in  establishing  in  these 
islands  her  own  Reformed,  yet  truly  Catholic  communion. 
There  is  but  one  cause  for  regret  in  the  acceptance  of  this  flag, 
that  I have  as  yet  no  missionary  yacht  on  which  to  carry  it. 
Ere  long,  let  us  hope,  this  defect  will  be  supplied,  and  that  to 
many  an  islander  of  this  vast  ocean,  now  “ lying  in  darkness  and 
the  shadow  of  death,”  it  may  symbolize  the  blessings  of  the 
Great  Sacrifice,  offered  on  the  Cross,  once  for  all. 

Once  more  I thank  you,  and  in  the  name  of  the  clergy  and 
laity  of  this  Church,  I think  too,  I may  venture  to  say,  on  be- 
half of  my  fellow  Christians  here,  of  whatsoever  denomination, 
I bid  you  a hearty  welcome.” 

The  Bishop  then  pronounced  the  benediction,  and  the  congre- 
gation dispersed. 


37 


APPENDIX. 


Occasional  reference  is  made  in  the  following  notes  to  a work, 
which  has  appeared  between  the  delivery  and  publication  of 
this  Pastoral  Address,  entitled  “ The  Hawaiian  Islands,  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Rufus  Anderson,  D.  D.”  A more  complete  review  of 
its  statements  and  its  aims  will  be  found  in  the  form  of  a note 
(G)  in  this  Appendix. 

Note  A,  page  5. 

I am  bound  to  record  what  is  the  result  of  my  intercourse  with 
Hawaiians,  of  all  classes,  that  they  have  any  thing  but  an  intel- 
ligent acquaintance  with  Holy  Scripture ; of  its  composite  charac- 
ter, of  the  times  and  circumstances  of  the  authors,  when  they 
wrote  the  various  books,  they  know’  nothing.  They  do  not  in 
fact,  possess  that  historical  and  common  information,  which  can 
alone  render  its  perusal  profitable  or  even  safe.  No  attempt 
seems  to  have  been  made  to  teach  them  how  to  distinguish  the 
human  from  the  divine  in  the  inspired  volume,  eternal  princi- 
ples from  what  is  temporary  and  incidental. 

A gentleman  living  in  one  the  islands,  who  knowrs  the  people 
well,  told  me  that  it  is  very  usual  for  them  to  think  they  are 
possessed  by  the  Devil. 

One  of  his  men  had  just  before  been  to  him,  complaining 
that  he  distinctly  “ felt  the  evil  spirit  tugging  at  his  entrails.’’ 
A dose  of  medicine  with  a mustard  plaster,  of  course,  soon  dis- 
patched this  troublesome  guest.  A similar  case  is  mentioned 
in  the  missionary  organ  of  March  4th  of  the  present  year, 
the  Pacific  Commercial  Advertiser.  I read  a letter  very  lately 
from  a District  Judge  in  another  island,  describing  a disturb- 
ance which  had  just  occurred.  A man  and  w’oman  were  sus- 
pected of  praying  one  or  more  persons  to  death.  A party  was 
formed  to  turn  them  out  of  doors  and  pull  down  their  house. 
The  ring-leader  in  the  movement  was  the  Calvinist  deacon  of 
the  place,  who  proceeded  at  their  head  with  an  open  Bible  in 
his  hand,  and  as  his  justification  pointed  out  the  passage  “ The 
house  of  the  w’icked  shall  be  overthrown.’’ 

The  Hawaiian  Pound-text  like  his  namesake  of  old  rejoices 
in  “improving”  the  Old  Testament.  Preaching  on  the  passage 
of  the  Children  of  Israel  through  the  Red  Sea,  a fewT  months 


38 


ago,  an  intelligent?  native  preacher  observed — “ Brethren  ! you 
will  ask  how  far  it  was  across  ! well  I don’t  know  exactly  ; 
perhaps  as  far  as  from  Hawaii  to  Kauai,”  (that  is  about  250  miles!) 
Questions  such  as  these,  the  curiosities,  if  I may  not  irreverently 
call  them,  of  the  Bible  narrative  are  what  they  love  to  dwell  on. 

I have  visited  the  natives  from  house  to  house  in  Honolulu 
and  other  places.  Many  of  them  have  a Bible.  If  you  see 
middle  aged  or  old  people  reading  it.  the  chances  are  they  are 
deep  in  the  wars  of  the  Israelites.  They  are  very  ready  like  the 
old  Puritans  in  Scripture  adaptations.  “ Oh  ! Lord,  turn  the 
counsel  of  this  Ahitophel  to  foolishness,”  were  the  words  on 
one  occasion  applied  to  one  of  our  people,  in  the  church  of  a 
very  intolerant  missionary,  by  a lay  deacon. 

The  most  zealous  literalist  would  be  fully  satisfied  with  the 
ideas  of  inspiration  inculcated  on  the  Hawaiians.  Their  views 
of  the  Christian  festival  called  the  Lord’s  day,  are  any  thing  but 
intelligent.  As  I mentioned  in  my  address,  Monday  is  called  “first 
day”  in  the  native  language  ; Saturday,  “sixth  day ” ; Sunday, 
“ Sabati ,”  and  the  penalties  prescribed  under  the  Jewish  law  have 
been  often  quoted  as  justifying  the  infliction  of  fines  for  going 
on  that  day  in  search  of  a stray  horse,  bathing,  making  a fire,* 
carrying  burdens,  (sometimes  even  when  necessary,)  and  the  in- 
terposition of  every  possible  obstacle  to  the  taking  in  of  fuel 
by  the  inter-island  steamer.  With  such  names  for  the  days  of 
the  week,  it  is  hard  to  conceive  what  intelligent  idea  the  people 
can  have  of  the  following  .passages  in  the  New  T'estament : 

“ On  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  disciples  came  together  to 
break  bread.” 

“ On  the  first  day  of  the  week  let  every  one  of  you  lay  by  him 
in  store  as  God  hath  prospered  him.”  “ I was  in  the  spirit  on 
the  Lord’s  day.”  “ That  the  same  words  might  be  preached  to 
to  them  the  next  Sabbath.” 

I am  bound  to  mention  that  my  friend  the  ReV.  A.  Bishop, 
tells  me  that  the  missionaries  are  not  to  be  held  responsible  for 
the  fact  that  there  is  one  spot  on  the  globe  where  the  Christian 
Sunday  is  not  the  first  but  the  seventh  day  of  the  week.  Still 
I am  quite  sure  that  at  some  periods  in  their  history  they  have 
exercised  enough  influence  over  the  powers  that  be  to  have 
changed  these  names  had  they  been  so  disposed. 

From  the  cases  which  have  been  cited,  but  two  Or  three  out 
of  many  similar  ones  which  have  crossed  my  observation,  may 
be  inferred  the  degree  of  intelligence  with  which  the  Bible  is 
read  by  Hawaiians.  Would  I could  say  that  those  who  read  it 


* Some  years  ago,  these  wore  actually  Darned  in  the  Polico  regulations. 


.so 


most  intelligently,  always  made  the  best  use  ot  it ! Too  often 
its  plain  narratives  are  perused  by  young  people  to  gratify  a 
prurient  curiosity  or  justify  some  youthful  lust. 

Note  B.,jxi(je  5. 

Dr.  Anderson,  p.  in  speaking  of  Vancouver’s  visit,  says  : 
“Excepting  a few  suggestions  to  the  King,  (Kamehameha  1.,) 
which  speak  well  for  his  character,  there  is  no  trace  of  any  re- 
ligious instruction  having  been  imparted  by  the  visitors  to  the 
natives,”  and  that  when,  twenty-five  years  afterwards,  the  first 
missionaries  arrived,  “ the  King  (Kamehameha  II.,)  had  some 
apprehensions,  awakened  doubtless  by  foreign  residents,  lest  an 
American  mission  might  have  some  injurious  effect  on  his  politi- 
cal relations.”  (p.  50.)  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  dissatisfac- 
tion with  their  religious  system,  which  led  to  the  destruction  of 
the  idols  and  the  breaking  of  the  Jcapu,  before  the  arrival  of  the 
missionaries,  was  in  a great  measure  due  to  the  intercourse  of 
Young  and  Davis  with  the  King  and  chiefs,  and  subsecpiently, 
of  Vancouver.  The  true  reason  why  there  was  any  question 
about  the  reception  of  the  first  missionaries,  was  the  doubt  in 
Liholiho’s  mind  whether  they  would  teach  the  same  hoomavo 
(worship)  as  that  which  Vancouver  promised  to  send  his  prede- 
cessor from  England,  and  which  had  been  so  long  expected  in 
vain.  It  was  only  when  assured  by  Mr.  Young  that  they  Avould 
inculcate  substantially  the  same  faith  that  they  were  permitted 
to  begin  their  labours. 

Note  C.,page  11. 

The  intercourse  of  Kamehameha  I.  with  foreigners  impressed 
him  with  the  notion  that  the  old  religion  could  not  last..  To 
Kaahumanu  and  Keopuolani,  his  wives,  he  communicated  this 
idea,  and  it  was  under  the  inspirations  they  received  from  him 
that  their  support  was  given  to  the  missionaries  after  his  death. 
While  ascribing  the  success  which  attended  the  first  preaching 
of  the  Gospel  among  the  Hawaiians  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  well 
not  to  overlook  secondary  causes,  and  among  these  the  influence 
of  Kaahumanu  was  undoubtedly  not  the  least  powerful.  Dr. 
Anderson  carefully  keeps  out  of  sight  the  means  she  resorted  to 
in  accomplishing  her  object.  Those  means  were  often  character- 
ized by  more  of  the  fortiter  in  re  than  the  suaviter  in  modo. 
Indeed,  they  were  sometimes  marked  by  oppression  and  cruelty. 
Even  if  it  had  not  been  so,  with  the  reverence  Hawaiians  have 
always  felt  for  their  chiefs,  her  example  alone  might  be  expected 
to  have  great  weight. 

Note  D.,  page  12. 

I refer  in  these  words  to  the  work  of  the  three  ladies,  mem- 
bers of  the  Devonport  Sisterhood  of  Mei'cy,  who  have  recently 


40 


arrived  from  England.  They  have  opened  a family  boarding 
and  industrial  school  for  girls,  at  Lahaina.  At  the  present  time 
they  have  fifty,  chiefly  Hawaiians,  under  their  teaching,  of 
whom  twenty-four  are  boarders  at  almost  nominal  rates.  There 
are  besides  fourteen  receiving  occasional  instruction,  making  a 
total  of  seventy-four,  more  or  less,  under  their  influence.  The 
Chinese  leprosy  is  unfortunately  very  prevalent  in  Lahaina, 
and  they  are  unremitting  in  their  attention  to  the  sick  of  all  de- 
nominations— visiting  them  and  dispensing  medicines  gratuitous- 
ly. One  of  the  most  influential  foreigners  there,  formerly  a 
Wesleyan  and  now  a communicant  of  the  Church,  writing  to  a 
friend  at  Honolulu,  refers  to  them  in  the  following  terms  : 

“ The  Sisters  are  much  liked  by  the  natives  and  appear  to  be 
happy,  and  it  is  evident  that  their  system  is  the  very  best  in 
operation  to  save  the  present  generation  of  girls  and  to  do  good 
among  the  people.  As  they  go  about  visiting  the  natives  and 
attending  upon  the  sick,  their  influence  will  be  felt  outside  of 
their  schools.  It  would  be  a good  thing  for  this  people  if  there 
were  a hundred  of  them  instead  of  three." 

I am  permitted  to  make  use  of  this  letter,  which  fell  into  my 
hands  incidentally.  Before  their  arrival  the  Calvinist  preacher 
was  in  the  habit  of  selling  medicine  to  the  Hawaiians  ; but  he 
has  given  out  his  intention  for  the  future  to  distribute  it  gratu- 
itously, except  in  the  case  of  persons  sending  their  children  to 
the  Sisters’  school!  He  has  sought  in  vain  to  thwart  the  pious 
labours  of  these  excellent  and  devoted  women,  not  only  by  de- 
nouncing them  privately  but  in  the  pulpit,  and  assuring  the  peo- 
ple that  they  are  aole  maikai  (bad) ! 

Note  E.,  page  13. 

Those  who  still  survive  from  the  times  of  the  First  Kameha- 
meha  agree  as  to  the  physical  deterioration  of  the  people, 
with  more  than  one  I have  conversed  on  this  subject.  Their 
impression  is  that  it  has  resulted  from  the  disuse  imposed  by 
the  Missionaries,  of  their  old  manly  exercises,  wrestling,  running, 
throwing  the  spear,  sliding  on  boards  down  deep  descents,  surf- 
riding,  etc.  A distinguished  English  gentleman,  in  1831,  wrote 
to  the  Rev.  H.  Bingham  a letter,  a printed  copy  of  which  1 
have  before  me,  protesting  against  this  policy.  Sir  E.  Belcher, 
in  his  voyage  round  the  world,  says  of  Oahu  : 

“ On  the  first  glance,  1 thought  it  had  retrograded  compared 
with  what  we  left  it  just  ten  years  before,  in  1827.  The  ap- 
pearance of  the  natives  was  miserable  and  dirty.  The  habit  of 
frequent  bathing  and  swimming  which  constituted  half  their  ex- 
istence is  exploded.” 

Dr.  Anderson  virtually  apologizes  for  the  missionary  prohibi- 
tion of  Hawaiian  amusements,  by  quoting  the  author  of  the  Poly- 


41 


nesian  researches  as  to  gambling  and  the  abuse#  to  which  they 
led.  This  is  the  old  Puritan  principle,  which,  if  carried  out, 
would  put  an  end  to  the  athletic  pursuits  and  recreations  of 
every  Christian  country  in  Europe.  The  abuses  must  be  cor- 
rected. It  is  not  needful  to  denationalize  a country  in  order 
to  Christianize  it.  Not  so  did  the  first  Evangel izers  of  Europe 
after  the  destruction  of  the  Roman  Empire. 

Note  F.,  page  20. 

These  words  refer  to  the  invitation  which  was  sent  to  one  of 
the  clergy  to  join  the  monthly  prayer  meeting  at  the  Fort  street 
Congregational  Church,  a few  weeks  after  their  arrival.  Dr. 
Anderson  says,  p.  368  : 

“ The  Protestant  clergy  of  Honolulu  (missionaries  and  others) 
took  an  early  opportunity  to  invite  one  of  the  newly  arrived 
orethren  to  attend  a union  monthly  meeting  for  prayer,  and  he, 
after  consulting  his  Bishop,  made  the  following  reply  : 

‘ He  (the  Bishop)  strengthened  my  own  opinion,  viz  : that  it 
would  be  inconsistent  in  a clergyman  of  our  Church  to  attend  a 
prayer  meeting  in  a place  of  worship  belonging  to  a denomina- 
tion of  Christians  who  do  not  regard  episcopacy  as  of  Divine 
appointment.’ 

There  was  no  collision.  The  common  civilities  of  life  were 
reciprocated,”  etc. 

In  justice  to  the  writer,  I feel  bound  to  publish  the  whole  of 
this  letter,  of  which  Dr.  Anderson  gives  us  only  a part.  I think 
it  will  serve  to  show  how  it  is  possible  for  a minister  of  our 
Church  to  feel  conscientious  scruples  about  uniting  with  those 
of  other  denominations  ecclesiastically,  and  vet  not  to  forget  the 
claims  due  to  Christian  courtesy. 

Nov.  4th,  1862. 

My  Dear  Sir  : — I thank  you  very  much  for  the  copies  of  the 
Friend  and  of  the  “ Missionary  Reports.”  Will  you  allow  me 
to  become  a subscriber  to  the  Friend  for  the  next  year? 

I think  it  is  only  straightforward  in  me  to  acknowledge  that 
I mentioned  to  the  Bishop*  your  kind  proposal  and  invitation  to 
unite  with  you  in  prayer  last  evening,  and  that  he  strengthened 
my  own  opinion,  viz  : that  it  would  be  inconsistent  in  a clergy- 
man of  our  Church  to  attend  a prayer  meeting  in  a place  of 
worship  belonging  to  a denomination  of  Christians  who  do  not 
regard  episcopacy  as  of  Divine  appointment,  when  his  very 
presence  would,  as  I think  you  will  grant,  encourage  people  to 
suppose  lie  also  did  not  consider  episcopal  ordination  as  neces- 
sary for  a Christian  minister.  It  would  be  very  different  had 
you  invited  me  merely  to  unite  with  you  and  others  in  prayers 
at  your  own  or  a private  house  for  some  definite  object,  as  for 
instance  prayer  for  the  union  of  all  Christians,  for  the  increase 
of  true  charity,  and  for  guidance  into  all  truth. 

6 


42 


I write  thus  plainly,  my  dear  Sir,  because  I feel  sure  you  are 
honest,  and  charitable  enough  to  understand  how  possible  it  is 
for  me  to  sympathize  most  sincerely  with  schemes,  such  as  this, 
of  concerted  prayer,  set  on  foot  for  the  promotion  of  our  dear 
Lord’s  glory,  and  yet  at  the  same  time,  to  be  unable  to  take  an 
active  part  in  them,  because  the  doing  so  would  in  me  be  a sin- 
ning against  essential  principles  of  the  Church  I have  sworn  to 
minister  faithfully  in. 

It  is  now,  as  it  ever  is,  painful  to  me  to  write  thus  to  such  as 
yourself,  at  whose  feet  I might  well  sit  and  learn  many  a spirit- 
ual and  practical  lesson. 

Believe  me,  my  dear  Sir,  yours,  faithfully, 

Geobge  Mason. 

Note  G. 

The  brief  space  at  my  disposal  forbids  any  attempt  to  follow  Dr. 
Anderson  through  the  picture  which  he  draws  of  the  primitive 
condition  of  the  islands.  Assuming  what  he  says  to  be  true,  and 
comparing  it  with  the  present  state  of  things,  the  question  aris- 
es, whether  a pure  morality  and  a pure  religion  prevail  in  them 
to  such  an  extent  as  to  render  the  introduction  of  any  new  influ- 
ences for  good  superfluous  ? There  can  be  no  doubt  of  his  views 
on  this  subject.  “ The  islands  have  been  Christianized,”  p. 
321  ; he  felt  that  he  “ was  among  a Christian  people,”  p.  288. 
fie  adopts  the  testimony  of  the  missionaries  that,  here,  “ is  as 
much  morality  and  as  much  practical  religion,  as  can  be  found 
in  any  community  of  equal  magnitude,  which  may  be  selected 
in  any  nation  under  heaven,”  p.  98.  Now  if  this  be  so,  what 
need  of  further  discussion  ? What  need  for  the  Doctor  to  draw 
his  comparison  between  the  Hawaiian  Christians  and  those  of 
the  early  Corinthian  Church,  in  respect  to  their  prevalent  vices 
and  superstitions  ? Yet  he  does  so  usque  ad  nauseam.  If  the 
morality  in  this  so  called  Christian  community  is  equal  to  “ that 
of  any  other  Christian  community  under  heaven,”  and  yet  the 
morality  of  the  former  is  only  a “ Corinthian”  one,  surely  it  re- 
quires no  profound  logician  to  arrive  at  the  inference  that  the 
morals  of  the  Christian  Church  everywhere  are  also  of  the  Co- 
rinthian type — a conclusion  which  I think  might  naturally  be 
followed  by  the  question,  “Of  what  use,  then,  is  Christianity  at 
all  ?” 

But  our  author,  though  he  thus  tacitly  admits  the  unsatisfac- 
tory nature  of  Hawaiian  morality,  descants  in  glowing  terms  on 
the  beauty  and  fervour  of  Hawaiian  piety.  The  piety  of  the 
islands,  after  “ a rigid  comparison”  with  piety  in  general,  and 
“ after  making  proper  allowances,”  is  found  to  differ  from  that 
of  New  England  Christiana  rather  in  the  circumstances  than  the 
reality,*  p.  288.  Licentiousness  and  intemperance  are  named  as 
two  of  these  “circumstances,”  and  we  are  led  therefore  to  infer 


* Tho  italics  are  Dr.  Anderson’s 


43 


that  the  virtues  opposed  to  those  are  mere  accidents,  wanting  to 
the  piety  of  the  Hawaiians,  because  it  is  Hawaiian,  but  involved 
in  our  idea  of  that  quality  as  exemplified  among  American  and 
English  Christians.  The  piety  is  identical  as  to  its  nature  and 
essence  in  the  two  cases,  though  its  outward  manifestations  are 
dilferent.  Now,  I contend  that  chastity  and  the  other  virtues 
of  social  life  are  involved  in  the  very  idea  of  piety,  and  that 
there  can  be  no  piety  at  all,  but  only  a miserable  counterfeit 
without  them.  Let  me  illustrate  what  I mean.  Mr.  Richards  says 
in  his  journal  quoted,  p.  84,  that  he  “ knew  a young  woman  who 
told  him  that  she  knew  of  thirty-one praying  females  in  Nahiena- 
ena’s  train.”  But  who  would  not  feel  more  confidence  in  the 
piety  of  these  interesting  females  if  Mr.  Richards  had  been  able 
to  state  that  they  were  also  trying  to  fulfil  the  Apostolic  pre- 
cept, “ Let  the  younger  women  learn  to  be  sober,  to  love  their 
children,  todove  their  husbands,  to  be  discreet,  chaste,  keepers 
at  home,  good,  obedient  to  their  own  husbands,  that  the  word  of 
God  be  not  blasphemed.”  Titus  ii.,  4,  5. 

Again,  Mr.  Lyons  of  Waimea,  whom  Ur.  Anderson,  in  regard 
to  his  admission  of  natives  into  the  Calvinistic  communion  calls 
“ a bold  operator,”  declares  p.  172  that  their  standard  of  morals 
is  as  high  as  can  reasonably  be  expected.  “ The  people  are  to 
be  judged  by  their  fruits.”  And  what  are  these  fruits  ? We 
are  of  course  expecting  to  read  that  chastity,  temperance,  res- 
pect for  an  oath,  abandonment  of  heathen  practices  are  widely 
prevalent  throughout  the  population  of  his  district,  more  than 
half  of  whom  “ make  a public  profession  of  religion,”  causing  the 
Secretary  of  the  Board,  himself  “to  question  this  state  of  things 
as  at  least  very  extraordinary.”  But  the  fruits  mentioned  are 
the  number  of  meeting  houses  built,  the  copies  of  the  Kuokoa 
taken,  the  number  of  Bibles  circulated. 

Now,  would  any  one  consider  the  proofs  of  TVaimean  piety 
quoted  by  Mr.  Lyons  so  conclusive  as  would  have  been  a few 
statistics  with  regard  to  the  number  per  cent,  of  his  female 
members,  married  or  single,  who  he  could  feel  sure  were  lead- 
ing virtuous  lives,  and  eating  the  bread  of  honest  industry  ? 
I cannot  but  fear  that  the  circulation  of  this  new  work  on  “ the 
Hawaiian  Islands,”  among  the  native  people,  will  be  any  thing 
but  conducive  to  their  moral  improvement.  “ Church  members” 
will  say,  “ After  all,  the  Secretary  of  the  Missionary  society  is 
quite  satisfied  with  us.  Our  practices  are  no  more  than  those 
of  the  Corinthians  whom  S.  Paul  declares  ‘ to  be  enriched  by 
Jesus  Christ  in  all  uttei*ance  coming  behind  in  no  gift,’ p..  291. 
Indeed,  we  are  as  moi'al  as  any  Christian  nation  in  the  world,” 
p.  98.  Thus  they  will  be  encouraged  to  remain  at  what  they,. at 
least,  feel  to  be  a very  low  point  of  moral  elevation. 

There  is  another  class  too  in  the  Islands  affected  by  the  ex- 
pression of  such  views  on  the  nature  of  true  piety.  Persons  of 
good  taste  feel  reluctant  to  drag  into  publicity  those  matters  of 


44 


the  inner  life  with  which  “ a stranger  intermeddleth  not.”  Dr. 
Anderson,  however,  on  two  occasions,  pp.  322,  374,  assures  his 
readers,  that  “ the  missionary  children  are  nearly  all  hopefully 
pious.”  Before  accepting  so  dubious  a compliment,  may  they 
not  be  expected  to  ask,  “ what  are  the  circumstances  you  connect 
with  the  piety  for  which  you  thus  give  us  credit  ? Do  you 
mean  that  we  are  living  as  just,  pure,  good,  true  hearted  men 
and  women  under  the  influences  of  our  holy  religion  ? Or,  do 
you  mean  that  our  piety  is  of  the  Hawaiian  type,  in  other  words, 
a species  of  unctuous  cant  and  glib  familiarity  with  sacred  ex- 
pressions, having  no  hold  on  the  moral  being?”  I feel  sure 
they  would  one  and  all  prefer  to  be  thought  irreligious  and  yet 
real,  rather  than  to  assume  credit  for  a form  of  godliness  with- 
out its  power.  t 

But  the  truth  is,  no  parallel  can  be  drawn  between  the  Ha- 
waiian and  Corinthian  Churches  in  respect  to  Christian  morals. 
If  we  are  to  believe  Dr.  Anderson,  the  Hawaiian  is  now  a com- 
pletely Christianized  nation , “ as  much  as  any  under  heaven.” 
Corinth  was  a heathen  city,  those  who  had  embraced  the  Gos- 
pel forming  a very  small  part  of  the  population.  When  S.  Paul 
wrote,  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  they  had  been  under 
Christian  teaching  only  three  years  at  the  most,  llawaiians 
have  enjoyed  this  advantage  now  for  nearly  half  a century.  There 
is  no  reason  to  think  the  moral  corruption  which  existed  among 
the  Christians  of  Corinth,  was  of  any  long  duration.  The 
excommunication  of  one  offender  by  the  Apostle,  1 Cor.,  v.  3. 
and  the  general  reproofs  which  he  administered  seem  to  have 
been  effectual.  We  learn  from  the  second  epistle  written  soon 
after  the  first,  that  already  they  had  “ approved  themselves 
clear  in  the  matter,”  having  sorrowed  with  that  godly  sorrow 
which  worketh  repentance  not  to  be  repented  of.”  2 Cor.  viii.. 
10,  11,  Clemens  Romanus,  one  of  the  Apostolic  fathers,  in  his 
epistle  to  this  same  ’ church  written  forty  years  subsequently, 
though  he  rebukes  them  for  their  divisions  and  want  of  disci- 
pline, no  where  mentions  sensuality  and  vice  as  common  among 
them.  He  even  speaks  of  their  early  Christianity  as  one  which 
taught  the  women  “ to  do  all  with  a blameless,  honourable  and 
chaste  conscience,  loving  their  husbands  as  their  duty  required.” 
The  power  of  the  Gospel  in  changing  the  habits  of  its  profes- 
sors must,  therefore,  have  made  itself  felt  almost,  immediately 
after  the  censures  of  the  Apostle.  We  have  no  reason  to  think 
that  “ Hawaiian  sins  ” characterized  the  Church  for  fifty,  twenty 
or  even  ten  years  after  its  establishment  in  this  heathen  city. 
Would  that  our  apologist,  writing  about  these  islands  forty-five 
years  after  the  first  proclamation  within  them  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Cross,  had  found  it  as  needless  to  refer  to  the  immorality  of 
“ pious  ” llawaiians,  as  Clemens  did  to  speak  of  similar  defects 
among  the  Corinthian  Christiana  of  his  day  ! 

It  is  strange  to  find  Dr.  Anderson  at  one  time  seeking  to  ex- 


45 


tenuate  the  defective  morality  of  the  Hawaiian.-*,  and  at  another 
time  declaring  that  it  belongs  only  to  the  past.  “ Polygamy  and 
polyandry,”  we  are  told,  “ have  passed  away” ! p.  290.  1 shall 

not  attempt  to  refute  this  startling  assertion,  but  only  remark 
that  its  author  must  have  been  strangely  misled  during  the  time 
of  his  visit  to  this  Kingdom,  if  he  arrived  at  any  such  conclu- 
sion. If  he  had  paid  more  attention  to  the  testimony  of  “ those 
intelligent  and  candid  men,  residents  at  the  islands,  graziers, 
planters  and  traders,  who  were  more  or  less  sceptical  on  this 
subject,”  p.  286,  and  less  to  that  of  interested  persons,  he  would 
most  certainly  never  have  uttered  a statement  so  monstrous. 
Why,  the  fearful  prevalence  of  polyandry,  and  that  too  among 
married  women,  is  more  than  any  thing  else  the  present  cause 
of  the  decrease  of  the  population ! So  also  of  the  statement 
that  “infanticide  has  ceased,”  p.  276.  Dr.  Anderson  must  be 
aware  that  there  are  other  forms  of  it  besides  putting  children  to 
death  after  their  birth,  whether  bv  burying  alive  or  other  means, 
p.  290.  He  speaks  approvingly  ot  the  laws  established  under  the 
influence  of  the  missionaries  for  the  repression  of  immorality,  and 
in  their  defence  asks,  “ Was  it  not  something  to  succeed  in  driv- 
ing those  shameless  vices  into  concealment  ? p.  239.  Can  he 
not  be  aware  that  those  laws,  now  happily  modified,  gave  a fear- 
ful impetus  to  the  practice  of  abortion,  which  was  resorted  to 
for  the  sake  of  avoiding  the  heavy  fines  and  imprisonment  with 
hard  labour,  to  which  they  exposed  the  unfortunate  females ! 1 
might  further  say  that  by  destroying  in  offenders  any  remains 
of  self-respect,  these  laws  are  to  be  held  in  a great  measure  re- 
sponsible for  the  little  effect  which  the  teaching  of  their  authors 
had  in  correcting  licentiousness,  whether  in  the  Church  or  out 
of  it.  It  is  hard  to  see  how  any  man  “ of  liberal  education,”  p. 
91,  or  the  commonest  knowledge  of  human  nature,  could  have 
sanctioned  such  laws.  The  effect  of  the  system  adopted  on  the 
morals  of  the  female  population  is  testified  by  one  above  all  par- 
ty bias.  I refer  to  Dr.  Rae,  the  magistrate  at  Hana,  East  Maui, 
long  a resident  there  and  himself  married  to  a native.  In  one 
of  his  letters  to  the  Polynesian  in  1862,  he  observes  : 

“ All  those  who,  for  the  last  forty  years,  have  been  the  real 
legislators  of  this  people,  have  somehow  or  other  been  furnish- 
ed with  a set  of  high-powered  calvinistic  spectacles,  and  have 
never  permitted  themselves  to  lay  them  aside. 

“ A glance  at  the  main  characteristics  of  that  sect  will  show 
that  this  my  hypothesis  sufficiently  explains  how  the  disastrous 
condition  of  affairs  we  contemplate  was  brought  about. 

“ Of  all  the  creeds  of  Christian  sects  the  Calvinistic,  as  laid 
down  by  its  founder,  is  the  least  qualified  to  take  large,  gener- 
ous and  comprehensive  views  of  the  great  mass  of  humanity  ly- 
ing without  its  pale.  Hence  its  incapacity  at  all  to  apprehend, 
and  still  less  to  sympathize,  with  the  rude  virtue  of  semi-bar- 


46 


barous  tribes.  Hence,  in  its  dealings  with  them,  two  terrible 
errors. 

“Believing  itself  gifted  with  a fund  of  infallible  truth,  it  is  rash 
to  seize  on,  and  to  deal  with  things  which  it  neither  apprehends 
nor  comprehends.  And,  again,  obstinate  in  its  persuasion  that, 
resting  on  infallible  truth,  all  its  doings  must  have  been  just  and 
right,  no  adverse  events  can  shake  its  faith  in  the  righteousness 
of  the  path  it  has  been  pursuing.  Conceive  we  then  a set  of 
men  in  conclave  together,  each  with  optics  such  as  I have  been 
describing,  met  to  consider  how  they  were  to  deal  with  the  Ha- 
waiian race,  and  we  may  easily  surmise  that  these  would  be  the 
conclusions  at  which  they  would  unanimously  arrive  : 

“ ‘ This  people  has  been  given  over  to  us  to  make  them  a holy 
and  godly,  and  therefore  a prosperous  and  flourishing  nation, 
showing  forth  to  the  world  all  the  benefits  of  Christian  civiliza- 
tion. We  have  the  means  in  our  hands  to  effect  the  glorious 
transmutation  ; we  have  the  Bible,  the- preached  word,  the  tem- 
poral power.  Let  us  be  up  and  doing.’ 

“ Let  us  see  how  they  followed  out  this  principle,  and  what 
have  been  the  results  of  their  procedure.  We  shall  find  that 
they  have  aggravated  the  old  and  introduced  new  evils. 

“ Smoking  tobacco  was  held  by  them  to  be  contrary  to  the 
law  of  God,  and  consequently  a sin.  Smoking  tobacco  was 
therefore  anathematized,  laid  under  interdiction,  and  the  most 
stringent  regulations  put  in  force  to  suppress  it.  What  was 
the  consequence  ? It  was  still  smoked  in  secret.  Those  who 
partook  not  thought  it  must  be  something  very  nice,  else  smok- 
ers would  not  run  such  risks  for  its  sake,  and  they,  too,  were 
tempted  to  try  it,  and,  as  they  tried  it,  they  found  it  had  all  the 
additional  zest  which  stolen  waters  and  bread,  eaten  in  secret, 
are  said  to  have.  The  result  has  been  that  with  few  exceptions 
a pipe  is  in  the  mouth  of  every  native  every  hour  of  the  day. 

“ But  the  crying  sin  of  the  land  was  the  licentious  habits  of 
the  people.  This  vice,  therefore,  must  be  crushed  out  with  the 
strong  hand. 

“I  admit  that  this  crushing  it  out  would  have  been  a very 
desirable  thing  if  it  could  have  been  effected  : but  I submit 
that  the  means  used  might  have  been  expected  to  aggravate, 
and  have  immensely  aggravated,  the  evil  which  they  were  in- 
tended to  abate.  These  means  ran  counter  to  principles  which 
it  is  vain  to  strive  against.  1st.  No  law  can  be  carried  into 
effect  if  it  be  opposed  to  the  sentiments  of  the  people.  2d.  No 
penal  law  can  be  carried  into  effect  if  it  be  generally  thought 
that  the  penalty  exceeds  the  measure  Of  the  offence. 

“The  measures  carried  through  here  were  far  more  harsh 
and  severe,  because  the  manners  of  the  people  caused  them  to 
be  felt  everywhere,  and  to  strike  alike  at  both  sexes.  They 
were,  besides,  unwarrantable,  because  they  were  unjust.  The 
majority  of  the  people  at  the  time  they  were  enacted,  eonceiv- 


47 


iug  that  intimate  relations  might  often  exist  between  the  sexes, 
not  terminating  in  marriage,  and  yet  not  in  themselves  culpable. 

“ Notwithstanding  all  this,  however,  no  resistance  was  offered, 
no  rebellion  ensued.  The  people  quietly  submitted.  This  was 
partly  owing  to  their  habits  of  implicit  obedience  to  the  will  of 
their  chiefs,  and  partly  because  they  themselves,  as  well  as  their 
chiefs,  were  desirous  that  they  should  become  civilized  men. 

“ It  was  not,  however,  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  a blow  so 
heavy  should  not  produce  corresponding  effects.  Let  us  see 
what  these  were  : 

“ 1st.  As  to  the  men  and  women  who  thus  suffered  as  crim- 
inals, it  will  be  granted  that  one  of  the  chief  ends  of  punishment 
is,  or  ought  to  be,  the  reformation  of  the  guilty,  by  withdraw- 
ing them  from  the  contagion  of  evil  manners,  and  inducing  more 
virtuous  habits,  Especially  ought  this  to  be  aimed  at  of  trans- 
gressions of  the  sort  of  which  we  speak,  and  brought  under  the 
cognizance  of  the  laws.  But  this  requires  preparation,  the  pro- 
viding of  suitable  buildings,  of  well  trained  and  moral  officials, 
and  of  all  the  things  necessary -for  the  proper  classification  and 
strict  supervision  of  offenders.  None  of  these  things  were  pre- 
pared. Offenders  of  all  sorts,  the  shameless  abandoned  and 
those  not  void  of  shame,  were  herded  together.  It  was  impos- 
sible to  watch  their  outgoings  and  incomings,  and,  unless  during 
their  hours  of  labour,  they  did  pretty  much  as  they  choose. 
The  inevitable  consequence  was  that  the  comparatively  inno- 
cent were  contaminated  by  associating  with  those  hardened  in 
every  vice.  No  woman  could  serve  out  her  term  at  the  Gov- 
ernment work  and  retain  the  slightest  personal  respect  for  her- 
self. The  punishment  was  simply  vindictive,  and  no  heed  was 
taken  of  its  being,  at  the  same  time,  in  the  highest  degree,  de- 
basing and  demoralizing.* 

“ As  to  the  onlookers,  like  all  excessive  punishments,  it  com- 
pletely overshot  the  mark,  and  entirely  missed  producing  any 
good  effect  upon  them.  The  penalty  seemed  in  their  eyes  so 
far  to  transcend  the  transgression,  that  they  were  rather  inclin- 
ed to  regard  those  enduring  it  as  victims  to  the  new  order  of 
things  than  as  offenders- — to  pity  them  as  unfortunate  rather 
than  to  censure  them  as  guilty.  The  punishment  had  thus 
little  or  no  tendency  to  inflict  a stigma  on  them,  or  to  cause 
them  to  lose  caste.  They  might  associate,  as  before,  with  what 
we  may  call  the  “ aristocracy  of  the  land.”  • 

“ But,  secondly,  the  operation  of  the  law  was  in  direct  contra- 
vention of  our  first  principle.  To  enforce  it  was  to  act  contrary 
to  the  wishes  of  parents  and  husbands.  Their  efforts  therefore 
act  in  opposition  to  it,  and  thus,  while  it  has  nearly  destroyed 
their  authority,  these  their  efforts  very  much  weaken  its  power. 

* The  S.  7.  Gazette,  No.  31,  1839,  gives  an  account  of  fifteen  of  these  un- 
fortunate females  being  yoked  to  a wagon  load  of  cane,  which  they  were  made 
to  draw  like  beasts  of  burden  ! 


48 


“ A father  learns  that  his  daughter,  just  approaching  woman- 
hood, has  been,  seduced  by  a certain  young,  and  very  possibly, 
a married  man.  He  would  wish  to  have  the  one  punished  whom 
he  considers  the  really  culpable  person.  But  if  he  apply  to  the 
law  he  finds  that  if  he  attempts  this  he  in  effect  is  using  his  ef- 
forts to  have  a heavy  penalty  inflicted  on  his  daughter,  or  rather 
on  himself,  and  it  is  a poor  satisfaction  to  him  either  to  pay  for 
her  a fine  of  fifteen  or  thirty  dollars,  or  to  see  her  taken  away 
from  him  to  Government  service,  and  very  possibly  returned  on 
his  hands  completely  demoralized.  He  therefore  remains 
quiet.” 

But  at  least  the  Board  of  Missions  at  Boston  has  the  satisfac- 
tion of  eradicating  from  the  minds  of  the  people  the  principles 
of  their  old  religion,  and  substituting  for  it  a pure  and  scriptural 
form  of  faith  and  worship.  Dr.  Anderson,  wherever  he  went, 
found  crowds  assembled  at  the  various  meeting  houses  to  wel- 
come him  and  join  in  prayer.  Such  crowds  would  of  course  as- 
semble to  hear  and  see  a visitor  holding  a position  so  import- 
ant. From  them  no  inference  should  be  drawn.  The  mis- 
sionary of  the  district  through  which  the  Reverend  Secretary 
was  passing  on  a tour  of  inspection,  would  be  expected  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  things,  to  marshall  all  his  forces  in  the  best 
possible  array.  Religious  fervour  is  catching,  and  numbers  fa- 
vour its  developement.  ft  is  not  surprising  therefore  that  the 
Doctor’s  “ feelings  were  drawn  out,”  p.  158,  on  such  occasions. 
For  information  of  those  of  my  readers  who  may  not  live  in  these 
islands,  I will  briefly  state  what  is  the  system  of  Divine  worship 
adopted  in  the  meeting  houses  of  Hawaii.  These  are  usually 
oblong  buildings,  fitted  up  with  benches,  opposite  to  which  is  a 
large,  unsightly  stage,  where  officiate  the  minister  and  his  assist- 
ants. The  people  enter  without  any  sign  of  reverence,  frequently 
laughing  and  talking,  till  their  “exercises”  begin.  These  con- 
sist of  singing  hymns,  (far  the  most  creditable  part  of  the  ser- 
vice,) extempore  prayers  and  an  exposition.  During  prayer  the 
minister  stands  and  the  people  sit  or  loll.  Kneeling  is  invaria- 
bly discouraged  as  “ popish.”  In  the  week,  meetings  are 
held,  ostensibly  of  a religious  kind,  but  sometimes  the  topics  of 
the  day,  politics,  the  American  war,  the  prices  of  cattle,  etc., 
are  discussed.  Occasionally  the  newspaper  is  read  and  explain- 
ed, the  whole  being  mingled  with  prayer.  Entertainments  are 
given  in  the  meeting  houses,  and  of  dramatic  representations. 
It  may  be  that  the  war  between  the  North  and  the  South, 
now  raging  in  America,  is  parodied  by  two  large  dolls  which 
are  made  to  fight  till  one  loses  its  head,*  or  perhaps  the  aw- 
ful scenes  connected  with  the  Passion  of  our  Lord  are  acted  on 


Such  an  exhibition  was  given  at  Waimea  at  the  end  of  18(53. 


40 


the  stage.*  The  principles  of  teetotalism  held  by  the  missiona- 
ries, have  led  them  to  discard  the  use  of  wine  in  the  Lord’s  Sup- 
per. Dr.  Anderson,  in  his  work,  in  one  place,  speaks  of  “ the 
wine  or  what  was  used  instead  of  it,”  p.  181.  He  prefers  not 
to  mention  its  name,  viz  : “ molasses  and  water.”  The  Rev.  T. 
» Coan  formerly  used  "baked  taro  and  water”  as  the  sacramental 
® element.  S.  I.  Gazette,  No.  7,  1889. 

Such  a system,  without  appealing  to  any  sense  of  beauty  or 
fitness,  incapable  of  inspiring  reverence  because  wholly  without 
dignity,  trampling  on  some  of  the  holiest  instincts  of  the  human 
heart,  may  be  expected  to  have  little  influence  on  the  moral  and 
spiritual  life  of  its  professors.  How  far  it  has  such  influence, 
how  far  even  the  great  truths  of  which  it  is  supposed  to  be  the 
expression  are  themselves  generally  matters  of  belief,  will  ap- 
pear from  the  testimony  given  by  Dr.  Rae,  in  1862  : 

“ Even  in  open  Court  I have  known  a belief  in  the  power  of 
Pelet  and  the  shark  admitted,  and  again  I have  known  a disbe- 
lief in  the  existence  of  the  Supreme  Being  avowed. 

“ These  things  have  so  wrought  on  the  native  mind,  that  there 
is  a tendency  to  return  to  the  ancient  faith.  Under  all  that 
tide  of  light  which  foreign  intercourse  pours  over  the  land, 
there  is  a strong  current  setting  towards  heathendom.  In  case 
of  severe  sickness,  for  instance,  invocation  of  the  ancient  deities 
and  sacrifice  to  them  is  very  common,  and  men  officiate  there 
whom  you  would  never  suspect  of  being  concerned  in  such  affairs. 
It  is  true  that  in  copies  of  these  invocations,  of  which  I have 
obtained  a sight,  the  name  of  the  Christian  God  is  not  omitted, 
hut  he  comes  at  the  tail  of  the  others,  under  the  title  of  the 
Lord  of  Heaven.  I am  told  by  very  good  authority,  that  if 
natives  take  an  oath  to  each  other,  it  is  never  a Bible  oath. 
They  swear  by  the  old  deities.  I once  asked  a native  why  a 
man  and  woman  who  had  been  repeatedly  fined  and  had  suffered 
other  punishments  for  an  improper  connection  continued  for 
many  years,  and  who  at  last  abandoned  considerable  property  and 
wandered  to  some  distant  part  in  order  that  it  might  be  contin- 
ued— I asked  this  native  how  it  was  that  they  were  so  firmly  at- 
tached that  nothing  could  break  the  connexion.  Oh,  he  said,  they 
are  hoohiki,  (sworn)  and  cannot  part  till  one  die.  Again,  should  a 
man  suspect  his  wife — should  he,  for  instance,  have  been  absent 
in  Oahu,  for  two  or  three  weeks,  and  on  his  return  hear  stories 
to  her  disadvantage,  he  will  challenge  her  with  having  been  un- 
true to  him.  She  disavows  the  imputation,  and  offers  to  take 

* An  occurrence  of  this  kind,  reminding  one  of  the  old  miracle  plays,  but 
without  their  solemnity,  took  place  at  “ The  Stone  Church,”  Honolulu,  the 
first  year  after  our  arrival.  One  native  was  Pontius  Pilate,  another  Judas ; the 
cock  crowing  drew  forth  loud  applause. 

| For  the  information  of  my  foreign  readers,  I would  state  that  Pele  is  the 
goddess  or  spirit  of  the  volcano  Kilauea. 

7 


50 


her  oath  that  it  is  false.  Does  any  one  suppose  that  she  means 
what,  in  my  country  of  Scotland,  is  called  a Bible  oath,  and 
reckoned  the  most  solemn  of  transactions.  By  no  means  ? Her 
husband  would  mock  at  such  frivolity.  But  if  she  take  a heath- 
en oath — if,  for  example,  she  swear  by  Pele  and  the  shark,  he  is 
satisfied.  Perhaps,  however,  she  was  really  guilty,  and,  in  her  * 
eagerness  to  clear  herself  of  suspicion,  had  sworn  falsely.  In  • 
such  cases,  I am  assured,  superstitious  fears  generally  so  disturb 
her  that  distress  of  mind  betrays  her,  and  she  is  obliged  to 
make  a full  confession  to  her  husband.  What  is  to  be  done  ? 
Some  great  calamity  broods  over  them.  They  must  avert  it. 
Accordingly,  the  man  slaughters  a hog,  makes  a feast  in  honour 
of  the  offended  gods,  they  together  pray  that  the  wrath  of  these 
may  be  averted,  and  thus  peace  is  restored  to  the  household.” 

It  is  idle  to  compare  such  superstitions  to  the  fancies  which 
still  linger  in  European  countries.  I have  found  the  belief  in 
the  old  gods,  as  at  least  having  a place  in  the  Christian  panthe- 
on, the  rule  rather  than  the  exception. 

A system  so  unimpressive  as  the  Puritan  worship,  is  power- 
less against  that  craving  for  the  objective  which,  if  not  used  and 
directed  aright,  draws  the  Hawaiians  back  into  idolatry.  Sev- 
eral pages,  pp.  99-106,  of  the  work  before  us  are  devoted  to  Mr. 

R.  H.  Dana’s  favourable  testimony  regarding  the  labours  of  the 
missionaries  written  in  1860.  Of  that  testimony  I desire  to  say 
nothing,  except  that  there  is  much  in  it  with  which  I fully  concur. 

It  is  a pityhowever  that  Dr.  Anderson  did  not  give  us  the  whole 
of  Mr.  Dana’s  remarks  instead  of  leaving  off  where  he  does.  But 
he  only  hints  at  the  remainder : “ Then  follow  suggestions  on  the 
probable  effect  of  certain  modifications  in  the  Protestant  wor- 
ship of  the  island  churches,  should  such  modifications  be  made,” 
p.  106.  1 will  supply  “the  suggestions”  which  have  been 

omitted  from  Mr.  Dana’s  description  : 

“The  only  system  of  worship  and  discipline  which  the  mis- 
sionaries have  introduced,  has  been  that  which  is  known  at  home 
as  the  Puritan  or  Independent  ; and  in  this  they  have  had  the 
field  to  themselves.  The  houses  of  worship  are  plain,  naked 
buildings,  with  pews  and  benches,  and  a large  desk,  in  which  the 
preacher,  sometimes  dressed  in  the  tweed  sack  coat  of  the  shop 
and  market,  (or,  as  I once  saw,  with  the  spurs  on  his  boots,) 
stands  to  read,  preach  and  pray.  The  congregation  sit  through 
the  whole  service,  not  only  never  kneeling  or  standing  in  prayer, 
but  not  even  bending  the  head  forward  in  token  of  reverence. 

The  music  is  solely  the  singing  of  one  or  two  rhyming  hymns, 
performed  by  a small  choir.  The  congregation  have  no  part  in 
the  service — they  are  simply  listeners  from  beginning  to  end  : 
young  or  old,  learned  or  unlearned,  they  are  expected  to  be  at- 
tentive listeners  for  some  two  hours,  without  a word  to  say,  a 
thing  to  do,  a sound  to  utter  for  themselves.  My  observation, 


51 


after  attending  several  places  of  worship  in  the  principal  islands, 
is,  that  tho  natives,  except  there  be  some  stirring  passage  in  the 
sermon,  are  languid  and  easily-distracted  listeners  and  irreverent 
actors.  In  their  family  worship  they  kneel,  and  are  more  rev- 
erent, being  left  more  to  their  instincts.  At  public  worship 
they  come  in  at  all  times,  sit,  look  about,  easily  fall  asleep,  and 
when  the  last  prayer  ends,  start  for  the  door,  a good  deal  as  a 
theatre  breaks  up — hardly  ever  waiting  for  the  benediction.” 

After  some  observations  on  tho  system  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  he  goes  on  : 

“The  subject  has  attracted  attention  in  the  islands.  I found 
that  many  who  agreed  with  me  in-  a high  estimate  of  the  good 
the  missionaries  have  done,  yet  felt  the  defects  of  the  public- 
worship  ; and  one  of  the  missionaries  told  me  he  had  long- 
thought  that  changes  must  be  made  in  their  system  in  the  direc- 
tion of  the  ritual  and  liturgy  of  the  English  Church .” 

It  is  very  painful  to  think  that  there  was  less  of  the  fearful 
practice  of  polyandry  and  the  corruption  of  girls  in  the  heathen 
than  in  the  Christian  days  of  this  people.  In  1863  evidence  to 
this  effect  was  received  by  a Minister  of  the  Crown,  from  one  of 
the  oldest  inhabitants  in  the  island  of  Kauai,  in  the  presence  of 
the  missionary  of  the  district.  I give  it  in  the  form  in  which 
it  was  taken  at  the  time  : 

“ Had  your  parents  any  children  besides  yourself  ?” 

“Yes.  Two  boys  and  three  girls.  All  grew  up.  My  sister 
is  still  alive.” 

“ Did  the  men  then  take  care  of  their  wives,  or  did  they  allow 
other  men  to  have  access  to  them  ?” 

“ The  men  were  very  angry  if  wives  were  unfaithful.  The 
Avomen  only  consorted  with  one  man." 

“ Did  the  parents  of  young  girls  allow  them  to  consort  with 
men  at  a tender  age,  or  did  they  take  good  care  of  them  till  they 
were  groAvn  up  ?” 

“ They  kept  them  carefully  till  they  Avere  groivn  up.” 

“ Was  the  island  full  of  people  when  you  Avere  young  ?” 

“ Yes,  there  were  many  people.” 

How  sadly  all  this  is  altered  ndAv  is  notorious  among  those 
who  have  any  knoAA-ledge  of  the  habits  of  the  people,  and  the 
change  for  the  worse,  I do  not  hesitate  to  say,  has  been  greatly 
aided  by  Puritanism,  working  partly  by  faulty  legislation*  partly 

* I might  add,  also,  by  the  too  rigid  distinction  which  it  draws  between  sacred 
and  secular.  The  early  missionaries  were  often  accused  of  discouraging  indus- 
try, as  taking  off  the  attention  from  heavenly  things.  Mr.  Richards  speaks, 
in  1825,  of  “ houses  for  prayer  multiplying  in  every  part,”  and  “ interest  is 
manifested  in  the  concerns  of  eternity ,”  p.  84.  “ The  spiritual  weakness”  of 

Waiobinu  is  attributed  by  Dr.  Anderson  to  one  of  its  former  pastors  having 
“ given  an  undue  proportion  of  time  and  strength  to  merely  civilizing  influences 
and  the  material  prosperity  of  the  people  !”  p.  141.  The  Gospel  of  the  Incar- 


52 


by  the  religious  unreality  which  it  too  commonly  fosters.  If  it 
is  said  that  contact  with  foreigners  has  brought  into  play  influ- 
ences unfavourable  to  morality  such  as  never  existed  before, 
offering  pecuniary  inducements  to  parents  even  to  prostitute 
their  own  wives  and  children,  we  may  surely  reply  that  a pure 
Christianity  ought  to  have  at  least  prevented  any  deterioration 
under  the  action  of  those  influences,  if  it  did  not  produce  a 
change  for  the  better.  And  I cannot  but  think  that  a Christi- 
anity, working  with  and  directing  those  natural  instincts  which 
God  has  planted  within  us,  and  not  seeking  to  override  and  crush 
them,  would  have  done  so. 

The  author  has  devoted  a chapter  to  “Schools  and  literature.” 
It  may  be  fairly  questioned  whether  the  action  of  the  former 
has  been  on  the  whole  conducive  to  female  morality.  The  com- 
mon schools  throughout  the  Kingdom  are  mixed,  boys  and  girls, 
young  men  and  young  women,  in  appearance,  at  least,  are  taught 
together,  often  by  a young  master.  The  advantages  of  learning 
to  read  and  write,  especially,  considering  the  miserable  quanti- 
ty, and  still  worse,  quality  of  Hawaiian  books *  * — are  hardly  a 
compensation  for  the  demoralizing  consequences  of  such  an  ar- 
rangement. Facts  have,  from  time  to  time,  been  brought  to 
light  which  shew  that  this  is  no  imaginary  danger.  The  Mis- 
sionaries fell  into  the  mistake  of  supposing,  that  as  the  sexes 
were  often  taught  together  in  New  England,  it  might  be  done 
with  equal  safety  here.  Far  better  would  it  have  been  to  have 
confined  the  common  school  system  to  boys,  and  have  educated, 
even,  a smaller  number  of  girls  in  family  boarding  schools.  The 
habits  of  industry  and  virtue  which  would  have  been  acquired 
under  such  training,  even  by  a few  in  each  island,  would  have 
been  felt  ere  this  by  the  whole  population.  The  division  of  the 
sexes  is  now  being  carried  out  by  the  Board  of  Education,  as  far 
as  can  be  done,  consistently  with  the  means  at  its  disposal,  and 
from  the  encouragement  which  it  is  giving  to  family  industrial 
schools,  it  is  hoped,  much  good  will  result.  It  is  impossible  to 
conceive  a work  more  noble,  more  worthy  of  our  heartiest  sym- 
pathy than  the  one  which  “ the  Sisters,”  both  of  the  Roman  and 
Anglican  Churches  are  attempting,  that  of  raising  up  a body  of 
industrious  and  virtuous  women,  to  become  good  Christian  moth- 
ers for  the  next  generation.  On  the  success  of  such  efforts,  as 
theirs  will  depend  the  preservation  of  the  race.  The  attention 
of  Dr.  Anderson  was  drawn  to  the  discontinuance  of  the  female 
boarding  school  at  Wailuku,  and  it  seems  to  have  met  with  his 

nation,  converting  the  meanest  duty  into  a sacrifice  to  God,  should  teach  a very 
different  doctrine  from  this.  Culling  on  a member  of  the  congregationalist 
mission  here,  soon  after  my  arrival,  I remarked  on  the  painful  decrease  of  the 
population.  “ Yes  !”  was  his  reply,  “ we  have  sent  thousands  to  glory  !” 

The  growth  of  tobacco  and  the  vino  involved  excommunication  equally  with 
adultery.  Even  the  planting  of  coffee  is  said  to  have  been  discourugod. 

* I refer  not  to  the  school  books,  but  those  for  general  reading. 


53 


disapproval.  For  ho  Bays  : “ My  inquiries  on  the  islands 

BROUGHT  NO  UNMARRIED  NATIVE  FEMALE,  TO  MY  KNOWLEDGE,  WHO 
WAS  DEEMED  SUITABLY  EDUCATED  FOR  A NATIVE  PASTOR’S  WIFE.” 
This  too,  in  a completely  “ christianized  nation!'' 

Of  the  institutions  for  the  education  of  boys  in  the  islands, 

I will  say  nothing,  except,  that  it  is  startling  to  read  that 
the  Punahou  College  ‘ is  one  of  the  more  important  elements 
of  safety  and  prosperity  for  the  Hawaiian  nation,”  p.  206. 
This  school  was  founded  twenty-five  years  ago,  for  the  educa- 
tion of  the  children  of  the  Missionaries.  It  received  with  char- 
acteristic liberality  endowments  from  the  Government,  in  re- 
turn for  the  benefits  which  the  American  Miesion  had  conferred. 
It  was  thrown  open  to  foreign  children  in  1851.  There  are  gen- 
erally two  or  three  Hawaiians  attending  it,  though,  I am  told, 
none  at  this  present  moment.  It  is  difficult  to  see  in  it  any  “ im- 
portant elements”  for  the  nation , or  how  the  statement  of  Mr. 
Dana,  quoted  by  the  author  can  be  sustained,  that  “it  is  the 
chief  hope  of  the  people."  p.  103. 

Dr.  Anderson  sees  repeatedly  in  the  history  of  the  evangel- 
ization of  the  Islands,  signs  of  the  Holy  Spirit’s  special  interpo- 
sition. The  great  revival  which  raised  the  number  of  church 
members,  in  the  course  of  five  years,  from  1,259  to  19,210,  com- 
menced in  1838.  These  sudden  movements,  the  result  of  im- 
pulse, rather  than  conviction,  are  always  to  be  viewed  with 
more  or  less  of  suspicion.  It  is  a fact,  that,  up  to  that  time, 
few  had  “joined  the  Church,”  after  nearly  twenty  years’  labour 
on  the  part  of  the  Missionaries.  Letters  were  continually  sent 
to  the  Society  at  home,  complaining  of  the  little  progress  that 
was  being  made.  “ Chiefs  are  darkhearted  and  fickle.”  “ They 
refuse  as  a nation  to  avail  themselves  of  proffered  aid.”  “ They 
will  not  gc  to  Christ.”  These  are  actual  quotations.  Suddenly, 
there  is  a “ shaking  among  the  dry  bones.”  In  the  memorable 
year  1838,  in  one  district  alone,  2,600  were  brought  into  the 
fold  bv  the  missionary,  whom  Dr.  Anderson  admits  to  have  been 
“ a bold  operator,”  and  “ to  have  carried  the  public  profession  of 
religion  too  far,”  pp.  171,  172. 

I doubt  not  that  religious  fervour  was  developed  in  “ the 
great  revival,”  that  many  who  shared  in  it  were  persons  of 
earnest  piety  and  simple  faith.  It  is,  nevertheless,  a coinci- 
dence, that  this  was  the  very  year  in  which  the  Rev.  Mr.  Rich- 
ards was  released  from  all  connexions  with  the  Mission,  by  “ the 
Prudential  Committe,”  that  he  might  act  as  constitutional  ad- 
viser to  the  Crown.  Beyond  exercising  a general  influence  on 
the  chiefs,  the  agents  of  the  Board,  up  to  that  time  had  enjoyed 
no  political  status.  The  chiefs  alone  were  the  responsible  ad- 
visers of  the  King.  Mr.  Richards’s  appointment  in  this  secular 
capacity  virtually  placed  him  in  the  rank  with,  if  not  over,  the 
high  chiefs  themselves.  Would  not  many  who  before  were 
halting  “ between  two  opinions  ” now  make  up  their  minds  to 


4 


54 


join  the  new  hoomana,  (religion,)  if  not  actuated  by  interested 
motives,  vet  feeling  doubts,  until  it  was  thus  firmly  seated  in  the 
state,  how  far  it  would  ultimately  prevail?  The  movement 
thus  begun,  would  rapidly  spread,  and  numbers  would  evoke 
enthusiasm. 

The  political  reign  of  the  Puritan  missionaries  began  with  the 
installation  of  Mr.  Richards  in  his  new  functions.  The  first  Ha- 
waiian Constitution  was  granted  by  Kamehameha  III.  the  next 
year.  It  recognized  the  feudal  tenure  of  land,  and  allowed  seven 
representatives  to  the  people,  who  were  to  sit  in  council  with 
the  King  and  sixteen  Nobles.  Under  this  Magna-Charta,  as  Dr. 
Anderson  calls  it,  p.  238,  was  enacted  that  series  of  cruel  laws 
and  penalties  which  has  proved  so  detrimental  to  female  morali- 
ty. It  was  the  policy  of  the  missionaries,  if  we  may  judge  them 
by  their  deeds  rather  than  their  professions,  to  undermine  the 
authority  of  the  chiefs  generally,  and  become  themselves  chiefs 
in  their  several  districts.  If  any  one  has  a doubt  on  this  sub- 
ject, let  him  read  the  Doctor’s  argument,  p.  313,  for  granting 
the  native  clergy  and  people  a more  prominent  part  in  the  man- 
agement of  their  church  affairs..  “ I could  not,”  he  says,  “dis- 
cover any  prudential  reason  of  much  weight  in  favor  of  delay. 
The  reverence  for  missionary  authority,  so  far  as  it  grew  out 
of  former  reverence  for  chiefs,  could  not  long  survive  the  loss 
of  authority  by  the  chiefs  themselves.”  The  accession  to  pow- 
er of  two  other  Puritan  missionaries,  one  of  whom  governed  for 
a time  with  almost  despotic  sway,  hastened  on  the  complete  de- 
struction of  all  feudal  relations  in  the  tenure  of  lands,  in  the 
rights  of  forced  labour ,*  and  in  the  Government.  The  demo- 
cratic Constitution  of  1852,  with  its  universal  suffrage,  vote  by 
ballot,  no  property  qualification,  could  only  end,  as  it  did,  in 
placing  the  whole  legislative  power  in  the  hands  of  the  preach- 
ers. They  must  have  known,  if  they  really  were  “ the  liberally 
educated  men”  Dr.  Anderson  contends  they  were,  that  institu- 
tions so  democratic,  however  admirably  adapted  for  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  a race  trained  through  all  the  gradations 
between  serfdom  and  liberty,  during  the  course  of  centuries,  could 
not  be  suitable  to  the  Hawaiian,  just  released  from  the  control 
of  his  chief,  unprepared  by  education,  requiring  even  sump- 
tuary  laws  for  the  regulation  of  his  diet.  They  well  knew  that 
the  missionary  of  any  district  would  be  the  chief  in  that  district, 
that  he  would  be  able  to  dictate  the  candidate  to  be  sent  up  to 
the  Legislature,  and  exercise  all  the  lawful  prerogatives  of  chief- 
dom.  How  entirely  these  expectations  were  fulfilled  is  matter 
of  history.  Mr.  Wyllie,  the  Foreign  Minister  in  1852,  recorded 
his  solemn  protest  against  the  permission,  which  the  Constitu* 


# The  missionaries  were  glud  to  make  use  of  this  forced  labour,  against  which 
they  are  so  often  found  now  to  inveigh,  for  the  erection  of  their  stone  meeting 
houses. 


ft 


tion  accorded  to  clergymen  to  sit  in  the  Legislature, and  against 
their  political  interference  generally.  It  was  in  vain.  Dr.  An- 
derson gives  us  in  extenso  the  rules  laid  down  by  the  Prudential 
Committee  for  the  guidance  of  their  agents  in  1838,  which  that 
well  known  Minister  pronounced  “worthy  to  be  printed  in  let- 
ters of  gold,’’  p.  233.  Some  of  the  orders  prescribed  are,  “ to 
withhold  themselves  entirely  from  all  interference  and  intermeddling 
with  the  political  affairs  and  party  concerns  of  the  nation .” 
“To  guard  the  subject  against  contempt  for  the  authority  of 
their  rulers,  or  any  evasion  or  resistance  of  government  orders,” 
to  teach  “ that  the  law  of  disloyalty  deserves  reproof  as  prompt- 
ly as  any  other  violation  of  the  commands  of  God,  etc.,”  p.  234. 
Beautiful  rules!  But  of  what  use  are  rules  if  they  are  not  ob- 
served ? Will  Dr.  Anderson  ask  the  Foreign  Minister  who 
commended  them  so  highly  in  1846,  how  he  can,  in  1865,  speak 
of  the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  carried  into  practice  by 
those  clergymen,  for  whose  guidance  they  were  framed?  Will  Dr. 
Anderson  then  give  to  the  world  the  result  of  his  investigation? 
No.  lit;  dare  not.  Perhaps  the  reason  why  the  Reverend  Sec- 
retary passes  over  in  silence  the  Constitution  of  1852,  and  stops 
in  the  constitutional  history  of  the  islauds  at  1846  is,  that  he 
well  knew,  the  less  said  about  that  great  mistake  the  better,  a 
mistake  it  was,  as  regarded  both  the  Missionaries  themselves 
and  the  truest  interests  of  the  people.  But  knowing,  as  he 
must  do,  that  the  members  sent  up  to  “ the  biennial  parlia- 
ment,” were  often  nominees  of  the  former,  knowing  that  the 
indifference  of  the  people  themselves  about  the  exercise  of  a 
franchise  for  which,  in  their  hearts,  they  felt  themselves  to 
be  wholly  disqualified,  would  naturally  lead  them  to  seek 
the  guidance  of  their  spiritual  pastors  in  the  matter,  it  is  sur- 
prising to  hear  him  coolly  declare  “ the  mission  had  necessarily 
for  a time,  much  influence  with  the  Government,  but  no  power  f 
p.  310.  What  is  “ power  with  a government,”  if  it  is  not  the 
power  to  control  the  legislation  of  the  country  by  creating  the 
legislators  ? 

The  well  known  incapacity  of  ecclesiastics  generally  for  the 
work  of  government  or  legislation  was  verified  here.  “ The 
Act  to  mitigate”  a great  social  evil  met  with  a stout  resistance. 
Another  for  preventing  parents  from  sending  their  daughters 
from  the  other  islands  to  Honolulu  was  rejected,  as  interfering 
with  the  rights  of  the  subject.  Even  the  Queen’s  Hospital  was 
denounced,  because  of  its  provision  for  a class  of  patients  whose 
diseases  were  considered  to  be  a just  reward  for  their  deeds,  and 
whose  cure  would  operate  as  an  encouragement  to  vice.  It  is 
not  surprising  that  when  his  present  Majesty  came  to  the  throne, 
acquainted  as  he  was  with  its  practical  working,  he  resolved  not 
to  take  the  oath  to  a Constitution  which  virtually  gave  supre- 
macy to  a single  class,  and  impeded  every  measure  for  the  social 


56 


and  sanitary  advancement  of  the  Hawaiian,  if  not  found  to  ac- 
cord with  their  illiberal  views  and  sectarian  aims. 

How  his  Majesty  called  a Convention  of  Nobles  and  Delegates 
of  the  People,  to  deliberate  with  him  on  certain  proposed 
changes,  is  a matter  of  history,  and  I shall  not  enter  into  its  de- 
tail further  than  1 am  obliged  to  do  in  order  to  prove  that  “ the 
golden  rules”  of  the  Prudential  Committee,  forbidding  their 
missionaries  “ to  intermeddle”  with  politics  and  “ to  show  con- 
tempt for  the  authority  of  their  rulers,”  p.  233,  have  been  any- 
thing but  faithfully  observed. 

It  was  the  wish  of  the  King  to  consult  with  his  subjects  un- 
biassed by  any  extraneous  influence.  But  in  this,  he  was  thwarted 
by  the  Missionaries,  who,  with  some  honourable  exceptions,  cir- 
culated in  their  districts  if  they  did  not  invent  the  most  absurd 
rumors  with  regard  to  His  Majesty’s  intentions.  “ The  people 
are  credulous  to  the  last  degree.  We  are  never  asked  the  why 
or  the  wherefore  of  that  we  tell  them.”  So  wrote  a certain 
missionary  of  his  Hawaiian  flock  in  1835.  ( Missionary  Herald. 

p.  187.)  It  would  seem  that  those  who  propagated  the  rumors 
to  which  I refer,  thought  that  thirty  years  of  subsequent  edu- 
cation had  produced  so  little  improvement  in  this  credulous  ten- 
dency that  they  might  safely  venture  to  put  it  to  test  in  1864. 
and  turn  it  to  their  own  advantage. 

Everywhere,  meetings  were  convened  in  their  chapels  to  op- 
pose the  King’s  policy.  Three  Missionaries  were  actually  re- 
turned as  delegates,  by  the  influence  of  “ the  brethren  ” in  the 
districts  which  they  represented.  The  language  and  doings  of 
these  Reverend  incendiaries  are  printed  in  the  Reports  of  the 
Convention,  and  speak  for  themselves.  We  have  seen  that  the 
Prudential  Committee  at  Boston,  in  their  famous  rules,  specially 
sets  its  face  against  “ contempt  for  authority,  and  resistance 
to  Government,  and  reminds  its  agents,  that  the  sin  of  disloy- 
alty tends  to  confusion,  anarchy  and  ruin,”  p.  234.  What  then 
are  we  to  think  of  one,  who  came  out  in  the  “ second  reinforce- 
ment,” in  1828,  using,  as  a delegate  in  this  Convention,  before 
his  Sovereign,  expressions  such  as  the  following,  lie,  (the  King.) 
had  but  “ one  hundred  soldiers  who  would  be  of  no  more  use 
than  one  hundred  shavings.”  (Reports,  Aug.  3,  No.  9.  The 
small  capital  letters  are  as  in  the  Reports.) 

I shall  have  occasion  to  refer  in  the  sequel  to  one  of  the  false 
statements  circulated  before  the  meeting  of  the  Convention, 
concerning  myself  and  the  Church  which  1 represent. 

1 have  spoken  of  the  political  meddling  of  the  mission  body  ;* 
but  I might  ask  Dr.  Anderson  further  whether  it  was  in  accord- 
ance with  the  spirit  of  the  Boston  regulation  for  the  missions  - 

* Let  it  be  understood  that  I am  not  speaking  of  individuals,  but  tbe  system. 
My  remarks  do  not  apply  to  all  tbe  members  of  the  Hawaiian  Evangelical  Asso- 
ciation, among  whom  I might  name  tbe  truly  venerable  missionary  Thurston, 
who  has  been  hero  since  1819,  and  the  Revs.  L.  Andrews  aud  Arteuias  Bishop. 


57 


ries  to  become  agents  in  their  several,  districts  for  the  sale  of  Crown 
lands  ? In  1851  the  following  pastors  were  appointed  to  serve 
in  this  capacity,  Revs.  E.  Bond,  L.  Lyons,  I).  B.  Lyman,  J.  S. 
Emerson,  E.  Johnson,  S.  G.  Dwight.  During  their  tenure  of 
office,  a period  of  ten  years,  some  of  them  were  accused  of  fa- 
vouring “church  members”  in  the  sales  which  they  effected, 
and  of  throwing  every  difficulty  in  the  way  of  any  foreign  pur- 
chaser, who  did  not  sympathize  with  their  distinctive  tenets. 
Instances  have  been  mentioned  to  me  of  their  having  done  so, 
with  what  degree  of  truth  I cannot  pretend  to  determine.  The 
temptation  would  be  great  1o  use  their  office,  as  far  as  they  could 
do  so  consistently  with  honesty,  as  a means  of  promoting  the 
interests  of  their  peculiar  religious  system.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Paris 
told  Dr.  Anderson  “ that  to  prevent  the  lands  immediately  about 
him  from  going  to  strangers  he  knew  not  who,  he  invested  his 
own  private  funds  in  them,”  p.  155.  This  of  course  is  only 
natural.  It  is  possible  the  same  feelings  may  have  influenced 
the  transactions  of  these  clerical  land  agents.  Be  this  as  it 
may,  they  were  released  from  their  duties  in  1860.  While  I am 
on  the  subject  of  land  I cannot  refrain  from  expressing  my  ad- 
miration of  the  way  in  which  the  chiefs  and  the  Government 
sought  to  aid  the  work  of  Christianizing  the  islands  bV  their 
liberal  endowments.  They  no  doubt  thought  that  by  entrusting 
their  gifts  to  the  hands  of  the  American  Board  of  Missions,  a 
perpetual  provision  would  be  gradually  made  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  a gospel  ministry,  when  foreign  aid  should  be  with- 
drawn. What  then  must  have  been  the  mortification  of  the  do- 
nors, if  they  had  formed  such  expectations,  to  find  that  the 
Prudential  Committee  in  July,  1848,  “entered  upon  a series  of 
measures  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  putting  it  in  the  power  of 
the  missionaries  to  remain  here  with  their  families.  They  en- 
couraged them  to  take  a conditional  release  from  their  connec- 
tion with  the  Board  and  become  Hawaiian  citizens.  They  pro- 
vided for  the  transfer  of  the  greater  part  of  the  property  held 
by  the  Board — houses,  lands,  herds,  etc.,  to  the  missionaries,  with 
the  understanding  that  they  would  remain  at  the  islands.  The 
lands  were  originally  received  from  the  rulers  of  the  islands,  and 
the  Government  * which  was  favourable  to  the  measure,  to  make 
the  transfer  more  sure,  gave  the  missionaries  a right  to  the  lands 
in  fee  simple  !”  p.  109.  That  is,  what  wras  intended  as  an  annuity 
to  the  Church  for  ever,  Avas  to  be  used  as  an  annuity  termin- 
able with  the  life  of  the  holder,  into  AAdiose  family  it  then 
passed,  the  only  compensation  alleged  being  the  great  ad-  * 
vantage  of  the  mission  families  settling  in  the  islands  “ as 
Hawaiian  citizens  ! ” Why  could  they  not  do  so  Avithout  such  a 
condition  ? If  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  in  medice- 


* The  Judd  administration.  Dr.  Judd  belonged  to  the  Mission  from  1823  to 
1843. 

8 


58 


val  times  had  so  treated  the  endowments  granted  to  the  Church 
in  perpetuity  by  the  Anglo-Saxon  and  English  Kings  or  feudal 
chiefs,  where  would  have  been  at  this  moment  the  Christianity 
of  Great  Britain  ? Where  would  have  been  that  of  Dr.  Ander- 
son himself  ? Is  it  surprising  that  the  future  of  “ the  Hawaii- 
an Churches”  should  be  to  him  a matter  of  uneasiness  ? Is  not 
that  anxiety  a just  penalty  for  the  throwing  away  by  the  Board 
of  means  which  might  have  done  so  much  to  obviate  the  need  for 
anxiety  as  to  the  future  support  of  their  missionaries  ? 

But  not  content  with  these  temporal  advantages,  far  the  ma- 
jority of  44  the  brethren”  applied  for  further  grants  of  land,  not 
as  donations,  but  to  be  paid  for  by  them  at  very  reduced  prices. 
Ten  received  3,578  acres  among  them  at  about  one-third  of  the 
price  charged  to  lay  purchasers.*  Eleven  former  lay  members 
of  the  mission  party  received  similar  grants.! 

After  this  the  reader  will  not  be  surprised  to  learn  that  44  in 
his  toiy  through  the  islands  the  brethren  every  where  made  him 
acquainted  with  their  temporal  affairs,  and  he  was  glad  to  find 
so  many  of  them  in  circumstances  favourable  to  their  comfort 
and  to  the  settlement  of  their  children.”  p.  110.  But  it  is  sur- 
prising to  find  so  much  made  of  the  number  of  dollars  spent  on 
the  evangelization  of  the  islands  by  American  Christians,  p.  340. 
and  so  little  said  of  what  has  been  received  in  the  way  of  mate- 
rial support  from  the  chiefs  of  this  Kingdom.  I may  say  that 
nothing  has  come  under  my  notice  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of 
the  Congregationalist  and  Presbyterian  missions  here,  more 
offensive  than  this  continual  reminding  the  Hawaiians  of  the 
amount  of  money  which  has  been  spent  upon  them  by  the  bounty 
of  others  ! It  is  always  an  ungracious  business,  to  say  the  least, 
to  remind  our  friends  of  the  favours  of  which  they  have  been 
the  recipients. 

One  would  expect  that  men  who  have  received  from  the 
nation  these  substantial  proofs  of  its  gratitude  would  be  far 
from  acquiescing  in  the  prospect  of  its  extinction,  and  would 
at  least  entertain  a feeling  of  loyalty  to  the  dynasty  to  which 
they  owe  so  much.  But  I am  in  possession  of  facts  which  shew 
that  in  some  instances  both  these  sentiments  are  wanting.  Let 
me  quote  from  the  Pacific.  Christian  Advocate  published  in  Ore- 
gon, October  29,  1864.  This  paper  takes  its  inspirations  on 
Hawaiian  affairs  from  the  organ  of  the  missionaries,  the  Pacific 
Commercial  Advertiser.  After  commenting  severely  on  the  policy 
of  His  Majesty  in  dissolving  the  Convention,  it  concludes  with 
« these  words,  “ It  is  possible  Kamehameha  V.  may  never  have 
A SUCCESSOR  TO  SIT  ON  THE  THRONE.  A REPUBLICAN  FORM  OF 


# The  exact  ratio  of  the  prices  was  55  : 145. 

f This  statement  is  taken  from  the  Polynesian,  May  8, 1852.  The  Committee, 
appointed  to  consider  the  applications  the  previous  June,  had  had  them  under 
consideration  in  the  interval. 


50 


Government  may  be  established  by  the  people.  It  is  not 

PROBABLE  THE  HAWAIIAN  NATION  WILL  TAMELY  SUBMIT  THEIR  NECKS 
TO  THE  YOKE  OF  DESPOTISM.  MaY  Goi)  PROSPER  THE  RIGHT!”  Ill 
a number  of  the  Eclectic  Magazine,  published  in  1862,  there  is  a 
notice  of  an  article  in  the  London  Quarter!)/  Review  for  October, 
in  the  same  year,  on  “The  Hawaiian  Islands.”  In  the  course  of 
his  criticism,  the  writer  quotes  a published  letter  of  the  Rev. 
Titus  Coan,  the  missionary  at  Hilo,  in  which,  referring  to  the 
possibility  of  an  extinction  of  the  race,  that  gentleman  says, 
•‘Let  it  be — God  will  provide  himself  with  a people  and 
Church  for  this  land.”  It  is  pleasing  to  find  the  Reverend 
Secretary  of  the  Board  expressing  himself  in  terms  very  differ- 
ent from  this.  “ The  decrease  of  population  has  diminished  so 
greatly  of  late  as  to  encourage  the  hope,  should  the  Govern- 
ment not  repeal  the  laws  against  ardent  spirits,  that  it  will  soon 
be  altogether  arrested,”  p.  271. 

There  is,  however,  a certain  sang  froid  mingled  with  some- 
thing of  superciliousness  in  the  following  remark  of  the  author- 
ized representative  of  the  missionaries,  considering  the  political 
and  pecuniary  advantages  which  they  have  received  from  the 
chiets  of  this  Kingdom,  “ What  the  Board  now  expected  was 
that  it  would  act  impartially  to  the  different  denominations  of 
Christians ! ” p.  122. 

At  the  time  these  words  were  spoken,  (and  of  their  intended 
application  there  can  be  no  doubt.)  neither  myself  nor  clergy  held 
any  office  under  the  Government  whatever,  and  we  had  receiv- 
ed no  material  aid  from  the  Islands,  beyond  the  private  contri- 
butions of  our  people,  and  a plot  of  land  on  which  to  build  a 
Church,  given  by  his  late  Majesty.  What  then  excited  all  this 
jealousy  and  apprehension  ? Simply  the  fact  that,  the  King  and 
Queen  had  in  their  court  a Bishop  acting  as  their  Chaplain  ! Our 
very  presence,  it  is  too  plain,  was  a source  of  irritation  from  the 
first,  which  we  sought  in  vain  to  allay  by  the  quiet  and  unobtru- 
sive discharge  of  our  sacred  duties,  ignoring  altogether  the.  mis- 
representations, and  calumnies,  to  which  we  were  subjected,  and 
as  Dr.  Anderson  admits  “ reciprocating  the  common  civilities  of 
Christian  life,”  p.  348.  As  the  author  has  devoted  a chapter  of 
his  work  to  his  own  unfavourable  impressions  of  the  Anglo-Ameri- 
can mission,  I will  briefly  describe  what  has  been  the  attitude 
assumed  towards  us  by  the  Puritan  missionaries,  from  the  time 
of  our  arrival  till  now.  Their  first  hope  was  that  the  effort 
which  was  being  made  to  send  a Bishop  and  Clergy  to 
the  Islands  would  fail.  No*  one  can  have  any  doubt  on 
the  point  who  reads  the  chapters  of  Dr.  Anderson’s  work  on 
“ the  Reformed  Catholic  Mission.”  Disappointed  in  this,  they 
trusted  we  might  be  prevailed  upon  to  stand  with  them  on  the 
same  ecclesiastical  platform.  The  Clergy  were  reminded  of  chap- 
lains of  the  Navy,  who  had  preached  in  this  or  that  Congrega- 
tional church.  To  this  they  replied,  “ that  they  would  probably 


60 


have  done  the  same — in  the  absenee  of  any  ‘ Episcopal  ’ place 
of  worship,”  that  “ at  Aspinwall  during  our  passage,  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopalian  chaplain  had  kindly  lent  his  church  to  the 
Bishop  for  a confirmation.  But  it  was  a very  different  matter 
to  take  part  in  their  ordinary  ministrations,  or  lend  them  our 
pulpits.”  I am  persuaded  from  many  facts,  which  have  come 
under  my  notice,  that  nothing  short  of  this  could  have  ever  re- 
conciled them  to  our  presence  here.  Every  stray  incident  to 
prove  that  there  am  instances  of  “ Episcopal  ” Clergymen  tak- 
ing part  with  dissenters  in  their  services  is  eagerly  seized  on 
and  published  by  the  “ Evangelical  ” press.  One  is  mentioned 
in  the  Friend  of  this  very  month,  (March,  1865.)  We  published 
six  months  ago  a new  edition  of  our  Hawaiian  Hymn  Book, 
formed  partly  from  translations  of  Hymns,  Ancient  and  Modern, 
and  partly  from  hymns  in  use  before  our  arrival.  The  Friend, 
(January,  1865,)  remarks,  “ our  neighbours  will  admit  the  Ameri- 
can missionaries  to  their  choirs,  not  to  their  pulpits.” 

Hinc  illce  lacrymce.  When  the  invitation  to  attend  the  Fort 
Street  prayer  meeting  was  declined,  the  note  of  war  was  sounded. 
The  pulpits  of  the  Congregational  meeting  houses-rang  with 
denunciations.  “ It  was  uncertain  whether  we  should  preach  the 
word  of  God,”  “We  were  not  true  Episcopalians,  Papists  in 
disguise.”  The  people  were  warned  against  attending  the  ser- 
vices of  the  Church,  and  every  possible  influence  brought  to 
bear,  to  prevent  their  doing  so.  In  order  to  confuse  the  native 
mind,  it  was  resolved  by  some  of  the  Missionaries  to  take  hence- 
forth the  name  of  “ Bishop.”  This  proceeding  drew  on  its  au- 
thors the  ridicule  even  of  their  own  organ  the  Pacific  Commer- 
cial Advertiser.  But  it  was  actually  carried  into  effect.  For, 
the  day  after  the  invitation  to  the  prayer  meeting  had  been 
declined,  one  of  them  called  at  my  house,  presenting  his 

carchas  “the  Bishop  of .”  And,  in  explanation  of  this 

unexpected  address,  entered  into  a dissertation  to  prove  that 
Bishops  were  only  overseers  in  the  same  sense  as  Presbyters. 

During  my  second  visit  to  the  island  of  Maui,  in  1863,  I was 
requested  by  a body  of  foreigners  from  all  parts  to  celebrate 
Divine  service  and  baptize  in  a certain  building,  which  had  been 
erected  by  them  on  the  distinct  understanding  that  they  could 
invite  whom  they  liked  to  be  their  minister,  and  that  it  was  in 
connection  with  no  denomination.  At  the  appointed  time  I went 
with  the  judge  of  the  island,  and  found  the  congregation  assem- 
bled outside,  unable  to  get  in.  The  missionary  of  the  district  (Dr. 
Anderson’s  “ old  friend  and  correspondent,”  (p.  179)  happened 
to  have  the  key  and  sturdily  resisted  all  entreaties  to  give  it  up. 
The  people  wished  to  break  open  the  door,  but  the  judge  and 
myself  prevailed  on  them  to  keep  the  peace,  and  under  a meri- 
dian and  tropical  sun,  bareheaded,  standing  on  the  steps  of  this 
humble  edifice,  a Bishop  of  the  Church  of  God  proclaimed  the 
Divine  Charity.  A calabash  filled  with  water  placed  on  a table 


61 


was  used  as  a font,  and  some  of  those  little  ones  to  whom  Puritan 
bigotry  had  refused  admittance  into  the  Christian  fold,  because 
of  their  parents  being  “ won-church-members,”  were  baptized. 

All  the  pent  up  animosity  to  which  1 have  referred,  burst 
forth  after  the  death  of  the  late  King.  Ii  was  hoped  that  this 
painful  event  would  in  fact  be  followed  by  the  breaking  up  of 
the  mission.  When  it  pleased  his  present  Majesty,  however,  to 
retain  the  Bishop  as  his  chaplain  and  to  make  him  a member  of 
rhe  Privv  Council,  (though  the  Rev.  Lorrin  Andrews,  formerly  a 
missionary,  also  received  a similar  commission,)  the  system  of 
misrepresentation  was  again  resorted  to.  Our  whole  course  has 
been  to  make  the  Church  Hawaiian,  and.  like  the  islands  them- 
selves, a point  of  union  for  all  nations.  Hence  the  President  of 
the  United  States  is  prayed  for  every  Sunday  with  the  Queen  of 
Great  Britain  and  the  Emperor  of  the  French.  November  the 
28th,  1863,  the  day  of  the  American  thanksgiving,  was  observed 
in  accordance  with  the  proclamation  of  the  President,  and  the 
Queen  attended  and  several  of  the  Ministers,  the  American  Rep- 
resentative himself  being  present.  My  efforts  to  obtain  clergy- 
men from  the  United  States  were  well  known.  Yet  in  spite  of 
all  these  things  letters  were  written  to  newspapers  in  that  coun- 
try identifying  me  with  imaginary  anti- American  intrigues.  Dr. 
Anderson  in  his  book  gives  countenance  to  such  misrepresenta- 
tions when  he  says,  “ The  King,  going  from  England  to  America 
in  his  foreign  travels,  unhappily  imbibed  an  anti-American  preju- 
dice, which  became  more  apparent  after  the  arrival  of  the  En- 
glish mission.”  p.  326.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  prejudice  he 
might  have  taken  the  trouble  to  state,  and  have  had  more  can- 
dour than  to  attempt  to  lay  it,  if  any  existed,  at  the  door  of  Eng- 
lishmen. It  is  clear  Dr.  Anderson  would  have  his  readers  think 
that  the  late  King’s  want  of  sympathy  with  the  missionaries  arose 
from  their  being  Americans.  No  such  thing.  It  was  their  religious 
system  which  he  could  not  approve,  be  it  English  or  be  it  Ameri- 
can. I may  state  that  His  Majesty  sent  through  me  a pressing- 
solicitation  to  the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Kip,  Bishop  of  California,  to 
be  a guest  at  the  Palace,  which  that  prelate  was  obliged  very 
unwillingly  to  decline.  The  fact  is,  it  suited  the  purpose  of 
rival  interests  here  to  make  use  of  this  ideal  anti-American  pre- 
judice to  deprive  us  of  our  American  supporters  and  to  damage 
the  Church.  My  being  in  the  Privy  Council  was  assumed  to 
mean  that  our  Church  was  going  to  be  “ established  by  law ” as^the 
national  religion,  and  to  be  “ supported  by  fresh  taxes  levied  on  the 
people .”  Everywhere  this  ridiculous  idea*  was  unblusbingly 
broached,  in  order  to  influence  the  election  of  delegates  to  the 
Convention,  and  it  did  more  than  any  other  cry  to  introduce 
there  men  opposed  to  the  King’s  policv.  If  there  can  be  anv 
% 

* The  argument  put  forth  was,  the  English  Church  is  supported  by  taxes ! 
Here  is  an  English  Bishop,  therefore,  he  mu6t  be  supported  in  the  same  way. 


. 62 


doubt,  it  must  be  set  at  rest  on  reading  the  resolutions  passed 
at  a seditious  assembly  held  in  the  meeting  house  of  the  Rev.  L. 
Smith,  May  14th,  1864  : 

“ It  is  believed  [by  whom  ?]  that  a revision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, as  foreshadowed  in  the  Proclamation,  would  pave  the  way 
to  the  establishment  of  an  undesired  [by  them  ?]  Church,  to  be 
supported  by  tithes  and  taxes  on  the  people.” 

Falsehoods  such  as  these  of  course  served  a temporary  pur- 
pose, but  a series  of  wise  measures  passed  in  the  late  session  of 
the  Legislative  Assembly,  convoked  under  the  new  Constitution, 
has  already  convinced  the  Hawaiians  how  much  they  have  been 
deceived.  They  feel  proud  of  a King  who  they  know  can  not 
be  made  by  any  such  party  manoeuvres  to  swerve  from  the  line 
which  he  has  marked  out  for  himself,  that  of  being,  if  possible, 
the  means  of  saving  the  life  of  his  people  and  raising  them  to  a 
higher  social  condition,  while  their  confidence  in  those  who  have 
so  greatly  misled  them  is  proportionably  diminished.  Let  me 
SAY  ONCE  FOR  ALL,  THAT  ON  NO  OCCASION  WHATEVER  HAVE  I EVER 
OFFERED  HIS  MAJESTY  POLITICAL  ADVICE,  OR  INFLUENCED  HIS  MEAS- 
URES in  the  slightest.  I will  say  further,  that  were  I to  at- 
tempt to  use  the  sacred  relation  in  which  I stand  to  the  King  as 
a means  for  political  intrigue,  or  for  influencing  his  Government 
in  any  way,  I should  lose  whatever  respect  or  weight  that  rela- 
tion now  carries  in  the  estimation  of  his  Majesty.  The  only 
services  which  I render  to  the  State  in  the  Privy  Council,  are 
as  its  acting  Chaplain  and  as  a member  of  the  Bureau  of  Public 
Instruction,  the  King  having  been  pleased  to  make  use  of  mv 
familiarity  with  the  subject  of  popular  education,  acquired  in 
England. 

I come  now  to  the  chapter  which  Dr.  Anderson  has  de- 
voted to  “the  Reformed  Catholic  Church.”  1 shall  dismiss 
it  with  a very  few  words,  having  already  disposed  of  its 
assertions,  with  regard  to  the  origin  .of  the  Anglo-American 
mission,  in  my  Pastoral  and  the  notes  appended  thereto.  Its 
principal  feature  is  the  attempt  to  fasten  upon  the  Church 
the  charge  of  “ Popery.”  Let  mo  first  remark  on  this  subject, 
that  I have  no  confidence  in  the  sincerity  of  all  this  affected 
horror  of  popery. 

Early  in  1863  a controversy  broke  out  between  two  cor- 
respondents in  the  native  journals,  one  advocating  the  side 
of  the  Roman  and  the  other  of  the  Anglican  Church.  It 
was  a pity  that  such  a strife  of  words  arose,  but  so  it  was. 
The  two  Hawaiian  combatants  were  believed  to  obtain  their 
materials  from  the  clergy  of  their  respective  Churches.  At 
all  events  the  battle  was  gallantly  and  courteously  fought, 
and  no  personalities  were  exchange^.  It  is  significant  that, 
throughout,  the  Calvinist  organ  sympathized  with  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  correspondent,  and  actually  published  an  Eng- 


63 


lish  translation  of  his  last  letter  as  a triumphant  refutation  of 
the  arguments  used  in  favor  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Eng- 
land.* 

Unsuccessful  efforts  were  made  before  the  assembling  ol  the 
Convention  to  induce  the  Roman  Catholic  interest  to  unite  with 
that  of  the  Puritans  in  a crusade,  the  aim  of  which  should  be  to 
effect  our  ignominious  retreat  from  the  islands.  The  impor- 
tance to  be  attached  to  the  “ anti-popery”  views  of  Dr.  Ander- 
son and  his  “Prudential  Committee  ’ may  be  therefore  appre- 
ciated. 

I shall  not  condescend  to  follow  the  author  through  his  re- 
marks on  the  ritual  and  teaching  of  the  Church  in  these  islands. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  they  are  strictly  in  conformity  with  the  laws 
and  usages  of  the  Church  in  England  and  America,  and  that  no- 
where can  be  found  services  heartier,  more  devotional,  and  more 
regularly  frequented.  What  I say  applies  equally  to  the  Ha- 
waiian and  foreign  congregations.  It  appears  that  Dr.  Ander- 
son objects  to  “ the  surplice  and  stole,”  the  attire  of  every 
English  and  American  clergyman,  and  to  the  “rochet,”  worn  by 
all  the  English  and  American  Bishops,  without  exception,  p.  353. 
Whence  his  competency  to  pronounce  on  what  is  consistent  or 
what  is  inconsistent  with  the  practice  of  the  Anglo-American 
Church  generally  may  be  inferred. 

The  object  of  our  author  is  to  damage  our  cause  by  all  possible 
means,  and  shake  the  confidence  of  our  friends  both  here  and 
elsewhere  in  our  aims  and  our  churchmanship.  He  takes  com- 
fort in  the  assurance  that  “ his  present  Majesty,  his  venerable 
father,  and  his  sister  Victoria,  have  not  connected  themselves 
with  that  Church,”  p.355.  He  feels  sure  the  service  is  “too 
showy”  [I  am  not  aware  Dr.  Anderson  ever  visited  our  Church 
while  here]  for  the  religious  taste  of  the  people.”  p:  353. 

Let  me  state  in  answer  to  all  these  attempts  to  represent  our 
ministrations  as  not  appreciated  in  Honolulu,  that  theoffertories 
in  “that  small  church,”  p.  353,  between  January  1,  1864,  and 
January  1,  1865,  amounted  to  $675,  exclusive  of  pledged  annual 
subscriptions  for  the  maintenance  fund,  amounting  to  $2,250, 
making  a total  raised  during  the  past  year  of  $2,925  or  £585 
sterling.  This  does  not  include  some  $200  raised  at  Lahaina. 

I append  a list  of  the  official  personages  connected  with  the 
Church. 


* There  is  a notice  in  tho  Friend  for  May,  1863,  in  which,  referring  to  the 
quotations  from  the  Fathers  employed  in  this  controversy,  the  Reverend  editor 
says  : “ Away  with  the  musty  tomes  of  the  old  Fathers,  who  wrote  learned 
treatises  to  beguile  the  weary  hours  of  monastic  life !”  This  is.  to  say  the  least, 
a new  view- of  the  Fathers  ! Where  would  have  been  that  Reverend  editor’s 
Christianity  now  but  for  those  “ musty  tomes?” 


64 


LIST  OF  PERSONAGES  CONNECTED  WITH  THE  CHURCH 


BISHOP. 

The  Right  Reverend  T.  N.  Staley,  D.  I). 


English, 

American, 


PRIESTS. 

\ The  Venerable  Archdeacon  G.  Mason.  M.  A. 
( The  Rev.  E.  Ibbotson. 

( The  Rev.  Peyton  Gallagher,  M.  A. 
j The  Rev.  H.  B.  Whipple." 


DEACONS. 

English. — The  Rev.  J.  J.  Elkingtox. 
Hawaiian. — The  Rev.  W.  Hoapili  Kaauwai. 


LAY  MEMBERS  OF  THE  SYNOD. 

H.  R.  H.  M.  KEKUANAOA.t  G.  H.  Luce,  Esq., 

The  Hon.  D.  Kalakaua,!  D.  Smith,  Esq., 

His  Honour  Judge  Robertson,  T.  Brown,  Esq.,  Treasurer. 

The  Hon.  Att’y  Gen.  Harris, 

Among  the  subscribers,  besides  the  above,  some  of  whom  are 
communicants,  are — 

His  Majesty  the  King, 

Her  Majesty  the  Queen, 

Her  Excellency  the  Governess  of  Hawaii,  the  half  sister  of 
tha  King  ;t 

His  Excellency  the  Governour  of  Maui,! 

H.  R.  H.  Prince  Wm.  Lunalilo,! 

Hon.  J.  S.  Kahalewai,  Judge  of  Maui  ; 

Hon.  W.  P.  Kamakau,  Judge  of  Oahu  ;t 

His  Excellency  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 

His  Excellency  the  Minister  of  the  Interior. 


* This  gentleman  is  expected  to  arrive  in  a few  months, 
f These  are  Hawaiian  members  of  the  House  of  Nobles. 


05 


SEEMON. 


Dr.  Anderson  in  his  work  has  chosen  to  avoid  all  unnecessary 
mention  of  his  late  Majesty,  and  of  his  beloved  Queen  Emma, 
whose  pure  and  benevolent  character  has  won  for  her  the  esteem 
of  all  of  whatever  religious  opinions.  I have,  therefore,  ap- 
pended the  following  extract  from  a sermon  of  the  Rev.  G.  Ma- 
son, M.  A.,  preached  the  Sunday  after  his  Majesty’s  decease  : 

“ Brethren  : — As  a Christian  minister, could  I have  ventured  to 
speak  of  the  rest  of  the  departed,  had  I not  felt  assured  that  he 
had  found  his  rest  in  that  only  refuge  of  sinners,  his  crucified 
Redeemer  ? You  may  not  all  know  how  he  loved  communion 
with  his  Lord.  You  may  not  all  know  how  it  was  his  delight  in 
the  early  morn  to  enter  the  courts  of  the  Lord’s  house  and  par- 
take of  the  bread  of  life,  after  due  preparation  and  hearty  con- 
trition for  past  sin.  Truly  to  him  it  was  the  most  comfortable 
sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  lie  ever  looked 
upon  the  Holy  Communion  service  as  a sacrifice  of  thanksgiv- 
ing, which  it  was  his  “ bounden  duty”  to  offer  on  all  special  oc- 
casions, whether  of  sorrow  or  of  jov.  Thus,  when  but  a few 
weeks  ago  God  visited  him  and  his  beloved  Queen  with  a severe 
accident,  his  first  thought  was  to  send  for  his  Bishop  to  cele- 
brate privately  those  holy  mysteries  as  a mark  of  his  gratitude, 
and  to  express  his  consciousness  of  hourly  dependence  on  the 
protecting  hand  of  the  King  of  Kings. 

Nor  need  we  fear  that  all  this  was  formal  superstition.  The 
man  who  could  appreciate  Charles  Kingsley's  writings,  and  find 
keen  pleasure  in  the  poetry  of  Tennyson  and  Longfellow,  is  not 
likely  to  be  the  slave  of  forms  and  ceremonies.  No  ! he  would 
have  worship  indeed  surrounded  by  all  those  accessories  which 
can  help  to  make  it  the  more  meet  for  the  acceptance  of  the 
King  to  whom  it  is  offered.  But  worship  was  to  him  the  crown 
of  life.  He  felt  there  must  be  a life  in  some  measure  prepared 
to  receive  that  crown.  And  such  was  his.  His  life,  at  least  for 
the  past  year,  was  a labour  of  love.  Yes ! “ he  rests  from  his  la- 
bours.” Scarce  can  I trust  myself  to  speak  of  that  labour  of  sor- 
row which  the  Royal  Parents  have  had  to  bear  these  past  weary 
months.  Yet,  when  considering  his  labours,  we  must  recall  this, 
the  heaviest  of  all — the  loss  of  his  fondest  hope.  He  rests 
from  that  labour.  Oh  ! will  you  not  agree  with  me,  brethren  ? 
The  dashing  out  of  that  little  star  of  hope  from  the  horizon  of 

9 


66 


his  earthly  future  was  indeed  a fiery  purgatory  of  sorrow — it 
may  be,  to  cleanse  his  soul  from  the  stain  of  past  sin,  and  to  fix 
his  alfections  upon  the  eternal  crown.  Notwithstanding  this, 
you  know  how  manfully  he  tried  to  shake  off  his  natural  grief, 
that  he  might  do  his  duty  as  a Christian  King  and  friend  of  the 
people,  despite  of  physical  infirmities  and  continually  recurring 
depression  of  spirits.  The  advent  of  our  mission,  at  a time  when 
the  first  burst  of  grief  had  scarce  subsided,  could  but  really 
have  added  weight  to  the  burden  he  had  to  bear.  But  his  re- 
fined, unselfish  spirit  never  allowed  his  manner  to  betray  the 
feeling  that  now  one  great  source  of  joy  at  the  arrival  of  our 
mission  was  dried  up  forever.  No ! his  words,  his  manner,  his 
deeds  ever  spoke  welcome  ! welcome  ! To  use  his  own  kind  po- 
etry of  expression,  “ our  coming  was,”  he  said,  “ as  the  evening 
dew  on  the  sun-scorched  flowers.”  Nor  must  we  omit  to  notice 
here  the  fear  his  sensitive  soul  must  have  felt,  on  being  obliged 
to  manifest  his  deliberate  adoption  of  a system  of  worship  and 
education  which  he  was  convinced  was  thebest  adapted  to  his  peo- 
ple, lest  by  so  doing  he  should  appear  to  show  ingratitude  to 
those  many  benevolent  persons  who  had  sought  to  benefit  his 
native  race,  though  by  means  of  religious  systems  he  himself 
could  not  sympathize  with.  How  much  he  suffered  in  this  way 
few  can  tell ! but  many  ought  to  be  able  to  appreciate  the  deli- 
cacy which  made  him  so  anxious  not  to  offend  the  feelings  of 
any,  who  might  differ  from  him  politically  or  religiously,  by  the 
introduction  of  any  measures  calculated  to  have  such  an  effect. 
His  thoughtful  mind  saw  what  was  the  work  God  had  given 
him  to  do,  and  he  did  it — wisely,  gently,  devotedly.  And  con- 
nected with  this  work  of  planting  our  mission  how  many  collat- 
eral works  occupied  his  time  and  thoughts,  and  called  forth  his 
living  and  active  sympathy  1 * * * The  translation  of  our 

book  of  Common  Prayer  into  the  native  language  was  by  no 
means  an  amusement  for  his  leisure  hours.  He  gave  himself  to 
the  work,  as  to  a real,  important,  wmrk  for  God;  and,  as  if  pre- 
scient of  the  coming  end,  he  could  not  rest  satisfied  until  it  was 
accomplished.  That  book,  with  its  thoughtful  preface,  shall  re- 
main a monument  of  his  piety,  bis  wisdom,  and  his  love  for  his 
people.  The  glorious  consequences  of  this  thy  noble  work,  Io- 
lani,  shall  follow  thee  to  doom  ! 

How  many  bright  remembrances  besides  those  we  have  al- 
ready recalled  rise  up  worthy  of  record  as  a supplement  to  the 
acts  of  the  Royal  Saints  of  Christendom,  remembrances  culled 
not  only  from  the  past  brief  year  of  good  works,  when  the  prin- 
ciple of  good  within  him  may  be  said  to  have  developed,  and  to 
have  been  moulded  more  definitely,  more  fixedly;  but  also  from 
by-gone  years,  when  that  same  principle  was  evidently  energi- 
zing, but  oftentimes  no  doubt  checked  or  turned  aside  by  the 
impetuous  rush  of  passions  which  inadequate  education  and 


67 


training  could  not  enable  him  sufficiently  to  control.*  Thus  how 
pleasing  it  is  now  to  hear  of  the  tender  anxiety  he  felt  for  his 
race  when  that  terrible  small-pox  visited  these  Islands!  Re- 
gardless of  infection  he  entered  their  huts  and  did  all  he  could 
to  relieve  their  necessities.  When  he  ascended  the  throne  he 
would  not  be  content  till  a hospital  was  raised  as  a refuge  for 
his  disease-afflicted  people.  And  to  achieve  this  many  of  you 
remember  how  he  begged  from  door  to  door  with  Royal  humil- 
ity for  those  dollars  his  own  limited  exchequer  was  unable  to 
furnish  ! May  it  not  be  said  of  him  as  of  Cornelius  the  Centu- 
rion, “ his  prayers  and  alms  had  gone  up  as  a memorial  before 
God.”  Hence  was  lie  prepared  to  add  to  his  good  works  a mod- 
est faith  in  the  Church  and  her  ordinances.  Hence  the  secret 
of  his  Christmas  joy  last  year,  when  the  blazing  kukui  torches 
revealed  in  the  streets  of  his  royal  city  the  unwonted  sight  of 
a King  walking  in  choral  procession  at  midnight,  hymning  the 
nativity  of  the  Babe  of  Bethlehem,  lienee  he  felt  it  rather  an 
honour  than  a condescension  to  robe  himself  in  the  white  robe 
of  the  sanctuary,  when  no  Priest  was  with  him  last  Spring  on 
the  Island  of  Hawaii,  that  he  might  pray  with  his  people  out  of 
our  translated  office-book,  and  speak  to  them  words  of  warning 
and  of  hope.  Brethren,  1 must  pause.  Your  own  memories 
may  help  many  of  you  to  till  up  from  the  details  of  daily  life  the 
description  of  a man  who  will  ever  be  endeared  to  us,  as  a gen- 
tleman Monarch  and  a Christian  brother.  Let  us  not,  brethren, 
be  surprised  if  we  hear  some  refer  to  the  failings  of  the  de- 
ceased King  in  contradiction  to  the  words  of  eulogium  that  have 
been  spoken  of  his  character.  The  imperfections  even  of  some 
of  God’s  great  saints  have  been  found  sufficient,  for  a time  at 
least,  to  blast  their  pious  memories.  There  always  will  be  found 
some  who  disregard  the  wffiolesome  proverb  of  Charity  “ I)e 
mortuis  nil  nisi  bonum.”  Should  you  meet  with  any  such,  breth- 
ren, recommend  to  their  meditations  the  Saviour’s  parable  of  the 
two  men  wTho  went  up  into  the  temple  to  pray — the  one  a Phari- 
see, and  the  other  a Publican.  Suggest  to  them  the  study  of 
that  King  of  Israel,  the  “ man  after  God’s  own  heart,”  the  “ sweet 
psalmist  of  Israel,”  the  royal  penitent — who  out  of  the  fulness 
of  his  contrite  heart  gave  expression  to  this  truth  of  God,  to  be 
the  confidence  of  all  penitents  while  the  world  shall  last.  “The 
sacrifices  of  God  are  a broken  spirit ; a broken  and  contrite 
heart,  0 God,  thou  wilt  not  despise.” 


* The  last  thought  of  my  Reverend  brother  was  to  attribute  any  blame  to  the 
early  instructors  of  His  late  Majesty. 


68 


POSTSCRIPT. 

It  has  occurred  to  rae  that  iny  remarks  on  Episcopacy  maybe 
misapplied.  The  case  of  those  'national  churches  of  Europe, 
which  are  non-Episcopal,  is  quite  different  from  that  of  the 
Brownists,  (Independents  or  Congregationalists,)  Baptists  and 
other  similar  seceders  from  the  Anglican  Church.  This  is  the 
view  of  those  of  its  divines  even,  who  have  dwelt  most  strongly 
on  its  Catholicity.  “ Though  our  Government  be  by  Divine 
right,  it  follows  not  there  is  no  salvation  without  it.”  (Bishop 
Andrewes,  1618,  in  his  controversy  with  Du  Moulin.)  The  de- 
fect of  the  Reformed  Churches  abroad  is  “ lamented  ” by  Hook- 
er, but  extenuated,  preface,  c II,  4,  and  book  III,  c 11.  So  Arch- 
bishop Laud,  “ Troubles  and  Trials,”  p.  134.  “ Your  Independ- 

ents, unlike  foreign  churches,  have  ho  root  of  orders  ; their  pas- 
tors are  of  lay  extraction.”  (Dr.  Maurice,  1700,  Defence  of 
Episcopacy.)  It  was  not  from  choice  that  the  Lutherans  had  no 
Bishops.  “ Eos  coegit  dura  necessitas,”  were  the  words  of  Sara- 
via.  In  Sweden  the  Episcopal  succession  has  been  maintained. 
In  Denmark  and  parts  of  Germany  the  crucifix,  altar,  lights,  in 
the  Lutheran  Churches,  united  with  the  highest  teaching  on 
the  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  and  their 
strongly  anti- Sabbatarian  views  would  greatly  shock  the  Puritan 
mind.  Indeed  no  one  would  denounce  the  Judaizing  of  the  Pu- 
ritans as  to  the  Lord’s  day,  and  their  “ touch  not,  taste  not” 
system  more  than  would  Luther  and  Calvin  if  alive  now. 


ERRATA. 


1 stated  a>  an  impression  that  there  were  no  native  Hawaiian 
scholars  now  at  the  Punahou  College.  I find,  however,  that 
there-are  tiro,  besides  several  halt-whites. 


’age  8,  note,  tor  “a  member  of”  read  "an  attendant  at.” 
13,  line  20,  for  “churchmen”  read  “churchman.” 


IT, 

22, 

27. 

20, 

29, 

30. 


17.  for  " holdimg”  read  “ holding. 
28,  dele  mark  of  quotation. 

for  " license”  read  " licence. 


2,  { 

Hi 

32,  alter  "states”  place  an  “ ? ” 

10.  for  "Co  labourers  elsewhere?”  read 


Co  la- 


bour elsewhere.’ 


Page  30,  line  27,  for  " would”  read  " will.” 

" 41,  “ 1,  for  "Polynesian  researches”  read  “Polynesia 

researches.” 

Page  48,  line  41,  dele  " of.” 

“ 55,  “ 16,  for  “into"  read  " out  in.” 

" 56,  “ 30,  for  " their”  read  “ its.” 

" 57,  " 31,  after  “ families”  place  “ (?)” 

“ 60,  “ 32,  for  " . And”  read  “ , and.” 

At  the  end  of  words  like  “rumour,”  read  “ o-u-r.” 


DATE  DUE 

o 7: 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.  S A. 

t 


